Karnataka HC Issues Notice To cm Siddaramaiah, wife Over Plea Seeking cbi Probe In MUDA Case
Siddaramaiah is facing allegations of illegalities in the allotment of 14 sites to his wife Parvathi B M by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
The karnataka High court on wednesday issued notice to chief minister Siddaramaiah, his wife, and others in response to an appeal filed by RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna, seeking direction to transfer the investigation into the MUDA site allotment case to the CBI.
Siddaramaiah is facing allegations of illegalities in the allotment of 14 sites to his wife Parvathi B M by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
The appeal challenges a february 7 order by a single-judge bench that rejected the petitioner's request to transfer the Lokayukta police's investigation into the alleged scam to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A division bench comprising Chief Justice N v Anjaria and Justice K v Aravind directed that the notice be made returnable on april 28, stating, "Notice to respondents returnable on april 28. Since it was stated that appeals connected to the subject matter controversy are slated to be listed on that day." The original petition was dismissed earlier this year, with the single judge concluding that Lokayukta's investigation did not demonstrate any bias or deficiency.
"The Lokayukta/office of the Lokayukta does not suffer from questionable independence," the court had held, emphasizing that the institution's autonomy is protected, as recognized by both the supreme court and a division bench of the High Court.
It further stated that the evidence submitted did not justify referring the case to the cbi for further or re-investigation.
During Wednesday's hearing, the division bench raised a procedural question regarding whether an appeal was maintainable against a single judge's ruling under Article 226 of the Constitution. "What are the yardsticks to judge whether the appeal is maintainable?" the bench asked.
Senior Advocate K G Raghavan, representing the appellant, clarified that the appeal did not contest a judicial order per se, but sought a writ of mandamus. "I am asking for a mandamus, not challenging an order of a court," he told the bench.
The court indicated that it would need to examine the issue of maintainability independently before proceeding further with the merits of the case.
Raghavan also informed the bench that a related appeal -- challenging the single judge's order upholding the Governor's sanction to prosecute the respondents -- is scheduled for hearing on april 28.
"The question of referring the matter to cbi would not arise if this court allows the appeal challenging the single judge order upholding the Governor's sanction to prosecute," he submitted.
The court will next hear the matter on april 28, alongside other appeals linked to the MUDA case.
Siddaramaiah, his wife, brother-in-law B M mallikarjun Swamy, Devaraju -- from whom Swamy had purchased land and gifted it to Parvathi -- and others have been named in the FIR registered by the Lokayukta police establishment, located in Mysuru on september 27, 2024, following the order of the Special court that exclusively deals with criminal cases related to former and elected MPs/MLAs.
The Lokayukta police have filed a closure 'B' report stating that there are no materials to justify the allegations against the chief minister, his wife, Mallikarjuna Swamy, and Devaraju in connection with the case.
However, the Lokayukta police had stated allotment of sites on a 50:50 ratio by MUDA officials had caused a loss to the government exchequer and had sought permission from the court to conduct further investigation into the acts of the officials.
In the MUDA site allotment case, it is alleged that 14 compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife in an upmarket area in Mysuru (Vijayanagar Layout 3rd and 4th stages), which had higher property value as compared to the location of her land which had been "acquired" by MUDA.
The MUDA had allotted plots to parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme instead of 3.16 acres of her land, where it developed a residential layout.
Under the controversial scheme, MUDA allotted 50 percent of developed land to the land losers instead of undeveloped land acquired from them for forming residential layouts.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel