BENGALURU: Karnataka Lokayukta B.S. Patil has concluded that allegations of misuse of political influence and causing financial loss to the state exchequer through the allotment of civic amenity (CA) sites to Siddhartha Vihar Trust are unsupported by evidence, closing a complaint filed in 2024 by BJP leader N.R. Ramesh.
The Lokayukta conducted an examination of the complaint for nearly two years and accepted a detailed scrutiny report prepared by Additional Registrar J.P. Archana. Patil signed the final scrutiny note on September 29, 2026, after reviewing the findings submitted on August 28. The 70-page report reportedly concludes that the allegations against the trust and the public servants named in the complaint do not warrant further action by the Lokayukta.
The development comes amid separate legal proceedings concerning the same issue. The Karnataka High Court recently permitted the continuation of proceedings on a private complaint filed by the Bribery-Free Karnataka Forum under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A special court dealing with cases involving elected representatives heard the matter on October 6 and scheduled the next hearing for October 15.
The complaint centres on two CA site allotments allegedly made to Siddhartha Vihar Trust, of which Congress president and Rajya Sabha member Mallikarjun Kharge and members of his family are trustees. Ramesh had alleged that the trust obtained a five-acre plot from the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) after concealing details of an earlier site allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).
According to the complaint, BDA had allotted the trust an 8,002-square-metre CA site, identified as Site No. 5, in BTM Layout’s fourth phase in 2014 for educational purposes on a 30-year lease. Ramesh alleged that the trust subsequently secured a five-acre CA site, Plot No. AM-4, in the Hardware Sector of the Hi-Tech Defence and Aerospace Park at Bagalur, near Yelahanka, from KIADB on May 30, 2024.
He claimed that political influence and official authority had been misused to secure both allotments in violation of the law, allegedly causing a loss of Rs 240 crore to the state exchequer. The complaint named Mallikarjun Kharge, Priyank Kharge, industrialist and minister M.B. Patil, Radhakrishna, Rahul M. Kharge, Radhabai Kharge and Industries and Commerce Department Principal Secretary Dr. Selvakumar, among others.
However, the Lokayukta’s final scrutiny note states that the documents examined did not substantiate the allegations of favouritism, maladministration, dereliction of duty or abuse of authority against the public servants named in the complaint.
The note reportedly observes that the allegation that the trust concealed its earlier BDA allotment to obtain the KIADB plot was not supported by the available records. A report submitted by KIADB’s chief executive officer on January 16, 2026, stated that the applicable allotment criteria did not make it mandatory for applicants to declare details of CA sites allotted by other government agencies.
The KIADB report also noted that the trust had voluntarily disclosed in its affidavit that it had received a site in BTM Layout. The Lokayukta considered this submission, along with explanations and documents furnished by KIADB, BDA and other respondents, while examining the complaint.
The scrutiny also considered the circumstances surrounding the earlier BDA allotment. The land acquisition process for BTM Layout had begun with a preliminary notification issued on August 6, 1988, followed by a final notification on November 3, 1990. The acquisition proceedings were subsequently declared to have lapsed following an order in a writ petition filed by landowners.
The Lokayukta’s note acknowledges that appeals filed by BDA and Siddhartha Vihar Trust against the relevant proceedings remain pending before the Karnataka High Court. Consequently, the legal status of the BTM Layout site allotment has not been finally settled.
Nevertheless, the Lokayukta concluded that the complaint’s specific allegation that the KIADB allotment was obtained by concealing the earlier BDA allotment lacked merit. The note also stated that the pricing of CA sites was not determined exclusively for Siddhartha Vihar Trust but applied uniformly to applicants in the relevant category and to land notified or reserved for that category.
Another significant observation concerns the five-acre KIADB plot. According to the board’s submission, the trust returned the allotted plot to KIADB, which accepted it. The Lokayukta cited this development while concluding that the allegation of financial loss to the state exchequer was not established.
In the final scrutiny note, Patil stated that a review of the entire record and the detailed report prepared by the additional registrar did not establish a case of dereliction of duty, maladministration, favouritism or abuse of power against the public servants named as respondents. He accepted the scrutiny report and ordered the complaint to be closed, observing that it lacked merit.
The Lokayukta’s decision closes the complaint filed by Ramesh before the anti-corruption ombudsman. However, the separate proceedings before the special court, following the High Court’s order, remain a distinct legal process, with the next hearing scheduled for October 15.
