Bengaluru, Sep 24, 2024
Ever since Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s resounding victory in the 2019 Assembly elections, the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case, which initially surfaced as a mere rumour, has been brushed aside by political parties.
However, once a complaint regarding this issue was lodged by RTI activists, social activists, and political party workers with the Lokayukta, and later with the Governor, the Congress government, particularly Siddaramaiah, began to feel the pressure.
With the High Court delivering its verdict on Tuesday upholding the Governor’s order to sanction action against Siddaramaiah, the case has now reached a stage that directly impacts state politics.
The verdict has also dealt a significant setback to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s four-decade political career and threatened to tarnish his previously clean image.
What is the MUDA case?
The MUDA case is primarily over the purchase, de-notification, gifting, encroachment, and awarding of sites in connection with 3.16 acres of land owned by Chief Minister’s wife B.M. Parvathi.
The BJP has alleged a loss of about Rs 4,000 crore to the government by alleged fraudulent allotments.
Chief Minister Siddaramaiah is also accused of misusing his office to create fraudulent documents over 3.17 acres of land near Mysuru city and got 14 sites allotted from the MUDA in the name of his wife.
Who are the petitioners?
JD-S leader Pradeep Kumar S.P., social and RTI activists T.J. Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna are petitioners.
MUDA timeline:
The controversial 3.16 acres of land in the name of CM’s wife originally belonged to one J. Devaraju family. MUDA began land acquisition allegedly in 1992. It was de-notified in 1998.
The said land was sold by J. Devaraju and family via a sale deed dated August 8, 2004, to Mallikarjuna Swamy, brother-in-law of Siddaramaiah, who was then Deputy Chief Minister in Congress and JD-S coalition government.
The land was converted for residential purposes through the conversion order on July 15, 2005, as sought by Mallikarjuna Swamy.
The gift deed executed by her brother B.M. Mallikarjunaswamy on October 6, 2010, in the name of Parvathi. Siddaramaiah was Leader of the Opposition in the state assembly then.
The land developed by the MUDA, into a residential layout, namely the Devanur Badavane 3rd Stage carving out residential sites and forming roads etc and 19 developed sites were distributed in 2014.
In 2014 a petition was submitted to MUDA regarding encroachment and seeking compensation by the Chief Minister’s wife.
In 2020, the MUDA passed a resolution on a 50:50 formula pertaining to the development of the layout. The mere discussion in the meeting was passed as a resolution allegedly. Siddaramaiah’s close associate, late Congress MP Dhruvanarayan chaired the meeting and the Chief Minister’s son Yathindra Siddaramaiah participated in this meeting.
14 sites measuring 40×60 worth Rs 2 crore each in prime Vijayanagar allotted on Jan 5, 2022, to CM Siddaramaiah’s wife.
Mysuru Deputy Commissioner K.V. Rajendra brought the issue to the notice of authorities in the Urban Development Department in February 2023.
The Urban Development Department allegedly turned a “blind eye to his letters and continued with the allotment of a bunch of sites to individuals “flouting” rules.
Mysuru RTI activist Gangaraju exposed the alleged illegal allotments to the Chief Minister’s family; the Communist Party of India and other organisations protested.
On July 1, 2024, the Karnataka government formed a committee headed by two IAS officers to probe the case.
On July 7, 2024, social activist Snehamayi Krishna lodged a complaint with the Vijayanagar police station in Mysuru. The police “refused” to file a criminal complaint and forward the case to the committee.
On July 11, 2024, T.J. Abraham lodged a complaint with the Election Commission against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah for “concealing” the information regarding this particular 3.16 acres of land owned by his wife Parvathi in his Election Affidavit.
Social activist Snehamayi Krishna made the charge that the original documents belonging to land owner Devaraju were forged.
BJP demanded a CBI probe. State President B.Y. Vijayendra maintained that as per the law, the wife of the Chief Minister was supposed to get only 2 sites measuring 40×60. Instead, she is allotted 14 sites in a prime locality.
He also stated the said land was acquired by MUDA before being purchased by Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law. How can he make the purchase of acquired land? Vijayendra had stated the RTC and the primary record of land ownership, expose the case.
RIT activist Gangaraju, who exposed the case, maintained that Siddaramaiah introduced the 50:50 formula for developing the layout in 2014.
Siddaramaiah has maintained that allotments are made during the tenure of the BJP government. After allotments, the BJP has claimed it to be a “scam”.
Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has said that his family never asked for sites at the prime localities. “We are ready to return them. The government should provide him Rs 62 crore instead,” the Chief Minister said.
On July 14: The Karnataka government, under fire, hands over the investigation to a single-member commission headed by retired Justice of the High Court P.N. Desai. The decision was made ahead of the Monsoon session and the committee was ordered to submit its report within six months.
On July 15: Karnataka BJP stages a protest march in Bengaluru
On July 24: Karnataka Speaker of the Legislative Assembly U.T. Khader refuses permission to debate the MUDA land case. BJP launches an overnight protest in the session at Vidhana Soudha.
On July 26: T.J. Abraham seeks the Governor’s consent for prosecution against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
On July 26: Siddaramaiah under attack by the opposition BJP and JD (S) over the MUDA scam states his political career is an open book and releases documents that he has no role in the land scam countering BJP’s charges. Attacks former PM H.D. Deve Gowda and Union Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy questions over their family assets.
On July 31: The Governor gets an expert opinion on giving consent for prosecution against Karnataka Siddaramaiah.
On Aug 1: Governor issues show cause notice to Siddaramaiah
On Aug 2: ‘Why should I fear? You are acting as a puppet of centre,’ Siddaramaiah on show cause notice on consent to prosecution by Governor
On Aug 4: BJP-JD-S launched a 7-day padyatra (foot march) from Bengaluru to Siddaramaiah’s native Mysuru demanding his resignation.
On Aug 10: BJP-JD-S’s padyatra (foot march) from Bengaluru to Siddaramaiah’s native Mysuru concludes.
On Aug 13: Yet another complaint lodged with the Karnataka Governor in the MUDA scam by social activist Snehamayi Krishna. The complaint demanded action in connection with the relinquishing letter registered in the name of the Governor with regard to the property in question in the MUDA land case in violation of the law.
On Aug 17: Karnataka Governor gives consent for prosecution against Siddaramaiah
On Aug 19: Siddaramaiah dubs K’taka Governor’s order impugned, files writ petition seeking quashing of Governor’s order
On Aug 19: Karnataka Siddaramaiah gets relief from High Court; Special Court for MLAs/MPs told not to pass order in MUDA case till Aug 29.
On Aug 21: K’taka BJP announces state-wide protest for attacks on Governor; Cong says, ‘BJP’s protest to fix internal party issues.’
On Aug 22: Congress MLC Ivan D’Souza issued a controversial statement stating that the Governor too can face former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina-like situation.
On Aug 28: Police complaint was lodged against Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvathi over the fabrication of documents.
On Aug 29: HC adjourns Siddaramaiah’s plea against K’taka Guv to Aug 31; counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi cites lack of natural justice
On Aug 31: High Court begins hearing in Karnataka Siddaramaiah’s case; Solicitor General defends Governor’s decision
On Sep 12: MUDA case involving Siddaramaiah: Karnataka HC completes hearing, reserves matter for order
On Sep 24: MUDA case: Siddaramaiah’s plea quashed, Governor’s prosecution decision upheld.(Agency)
