The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a major blow from Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s plea challenging the validity of the governor’s approval to investigate him in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land scam. Siddaramaiah has challenged Governor Thaaarchand Gehlot’s approval of an investigation against him under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of the Indian Civil Defense Act. The governor approved the probe after a petition was filed by three activists, who alleged irregularities in MUDA’s allotment of 14 plots to Siddaramaiah’s wife in a prime location.
In his order, Justice M Nagaprasanna said it was difficult to accept that Siddaramaiah was not behind the entire MUDA land deal, in which his family members allegedly made a profit of around Rs 56 crore.
“The compensation in the entire transaction was fixed at Rs 3.56 lakh and it turned out to be Rs 56 crore. It is unacceptable that the beneficiaries of the entire transaction were not the family members of the petitioner,” Justice Nagaprasanna ruled in favor of the court. The First Minister’s family should investigate how and why these rules were breached. “
Siddaramaiah argued in the petition that the Governor’s sanctioning order was contrary to statutory orders and contrary to constitutional principles, including the recommendations of the Council of Ministers, which are binding under Article 163 of the Constitution of India.
In this regard, the court said that it is difficult to expect the cabinet nominated by the chief minister to take an impartial decision on the issue of sanction and prosecution of its leaders. Justice Nagaprasanna said, “The facts stated in the petition undoubtedly require investigation, although the beneficiaries of all these acts are not outsiders but family members of the petitioner (Siddaramaiah). The petition is dismissed.”
The case relates to the allegation that Siddaramaiah’s wife BM Parvathi obtained compensation land in an upscale area of Mysore where the property value was higher than where the land acquired for her by MUDA was located. MUDA allotted land to Parvati in the ratio of 50:50 in exchange for her 3.16 acres of land where MUDA developed a residential layout.
Key points of verdict against Siddaramaiah in MUDA scam –
1. The petitioner has produced prima facie evidence of misuse of official powers by the Chief Minister and others.
2. Although the land allotted to MUDA is 40 km from Mysuru, the alternative plots offered are in prime locations in the city centre.
3. This case is an example of indirect influence exerted by those holding public service positions.
4. Making an indirect impact does not always require a formal letter of recommendation or a formal order.
5. This benefit is not given to an unknown person, but to the wife of a famous person.
6. In the village of Kesar, there is no example of such valuable alternative land being provided to farmers who have lost their land.
7. If it were targeted at an ordinary person, he would not be able to escape investigation no matter what.
8. When the chief minister is accused of making huge profits of Rs 56 crore, an investigation is necessary and inevitable.
9. It is common for those who make corruption complaints to face counter-accusations, and this is also the case for whistleblowers.
10. The fact that the wife claimed and received another piece of land does not preclude the petitioner’s involvement in the matter.
11. Shocking to the court’s conscience, the plaintiff was given not 4,800 square feet but 38,284 square feet. 2 sites turned into 14 sites. The petitioner’s wife is now the proud owner of 14 plots of land worth Rs 56 crore.
