Karnataka Governor Grants Sanction For Prosecution Against CM Siddaramaiah

In a blow to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has granted sanction for the prosecution of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in connection with Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotment 'scam’, official sources said on Saturday.

Bengaluru:Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot on Saturday granted sanction for the prosecution of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in connection with Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotment 'scam'.

"The Governor has granted sanction for prosecution against the Chief Minister. It is based on three petitions filed by -- T J Abraham, Pradeep Kumar and Snehamayi Krishna," a senior official at the Raj Bhavan told PTI.

The Governor's secretariat has written to Pradeep Kumar S P, T J Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna about the decision of the component authority on the request for sanction of prosecution against Siddaramaiah, under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 218 of Bharithiya Nagarika Suraksha Samhitha, 2023 for the commission of alleged offences mentioned in the petitions.

A special meeting of the state cabinet has been called at 5 pm today, following the Governor's decision. According to official and Congress sources, the Chief Minister will legally fight the prosecution sanction accorded by the Governor. Siddaramaiah has repeatedly said that the Congress government led by him is ready to fight legally and politically, in case the Governor rejects the Cabinet's advice to withdraw the "show cause notice" to him, and grants permission for prosecution.

Based on a petition filed by advocate-activist T J Abraham, Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot had issued a "show cause notice" on July 26 directing the Chief Minister to submit his reply to the allegations against him within seven days as to why permission for prosecution should not be granted against him.

The Karnataka government had on August 1 "strongly advised" the Governor to withdraw his "show-cause notice" to the Chief Minister and alleged "gross misuse of the Constitutional Office ' of the Governor.

Addressing reporters after the meeting of the Council of Ministers on August 1, Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar had said the Governor failed to take note of the fact that Abraham comes with criminal antecedents having criminal cases of blackmail and extortion registered against him.

In the MUDA 'scam', it is alleged that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru, which had higher property value as compared to the location of her land which had been "acquired" by the MUDA. The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.16 acres of her land, where MUDA developed a residential layout.

Under the controversial scheme, MUDA allotted 50 per cent of developed land to the land losers in lieu of undeveloped land acquired from them for forming residential layouts. The BJP leaders have claimed that the MUDA "scam" is of the magnitude of Rs 4,000 crore to Rs 5,000 crore.

The Congress government on July 14 constituted a single-member inquiry commission under former High Court Judge Justice P N Desai to probe the MUDA 'scam'. The opposition BJP and JDS held a week-long 'padayatra' earlier this month from Bengaluru to Mysuru demanding the resignation of Siddaramaiah in connection with the scam.

What is the Karnataka MUDA scam?

The Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) is under investigation for possible unfair practices in giving out land as compensation for taking over private property. The issue became more serious when it was alleged that Parvathi, the wife of Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, received 14 residential plots in a high-end area. This has raised questions about whether the process was fair and legal.

Background of MUDA

MUDA, originally called the City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) when it was created in 1904, is responsible for urban planning and development in Mysuru. One of its roles is to acquire land for residential layouts. However, MUDA has faced legal problems due to incomplete land acquisitions.

Compensation Challenges

Because of financial problems and ongoing lawsuits, MUDA has had trouble properly compensating people who lost their land. In 2020, the High Court ordered MUDA to return land it had taken illegally, prompting MUDA to find other ways to compensate landowners.

The 50:50 Ratio Scheme

To address financial issues, MUDA started a 50:50 ratio scheme in 2020. This plan gives 50% of the developed land to the original landowners and allows MUDA to keep the other half. This helps MUDA partially compensate for the land taken.

Allegations of Misuse

While this scheme aimed to make land allotment fairer, there have been allegations of unauthorized allocations and involvement of middlemen. Critics claim some people benefited improperly from this scheme without proper checks.

Involvement of Siddaramaiah and Parvathi

Parvathi Siddaramaiah, the wife of Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, received 14 residential plots as compensation for land acquired for development. This has drawn scrutiny due to her political connections, with opposition parties questioning the fairness and legality of this allotment compared to other land values in the area.

Opposition’s Response

The BJP and JD(S) parties have accused the ruling Congress party of corruption and mismanagement, demanding an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). They have organized protests to raise awareness of the issue. The state government has acknowledged the need for an investigation and has announced a one-man judicial commission to look into the alleged irregularities. However, opposition leaders are skeptical, claiming this is just a way to protect the current government.

What Has Siddaramaiah Said?

In his response to the BJP's offensive, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has said his wife was awarded compensation when the BJP was in power and that it was her right. "They (BJP) are the ones who gave the site, now if they call it illegal, how should one respond? They took away our land and parks were made there, and those sites were allocated to others. Should we give up our land because I am the Chief Minister.

How has the government responded?

Even as Congress leaders have been claiming that leaders of BJP and JD(S) too have been beneficiaries of MUDA site allotment, the State Government has announced a one-man judicial commission headed by retired judge of Karnataka High Court P.N. Desai to probe into the alleged irregularities and submit its report in six months.

While JD(S) leader and former MUDA Chairman S.R. Mahesh said irregularities in the MUDA can never be brought to light by either the Government inquiry or the judicial probe, Union Minister for Heavy Industries and Steel H D Kumaraswamy said the judicial commission announced by the Government is aimed at only safeguarding Mr. Siddaramaiah’s interests.

Problems with scheme

The 50:50 scheme introduced by MUDA in November 2020 came under severe criticism from various quarters several months ago, forcing the State government to issue orders against allotting sites under it to land-losers.

Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh said he issued orders to MUDA against allotting sites under the scheme in October and December 2023. But, allotment of sites to land-losers under the scheme continued. A large number of sites had allegedly been allotted illegally to persons claiming to be land-losers. Apart from the role of middlemen, the active connivance of MUDA officials has been suspected in the alleged scam.

MLA for Krishnaraja T.S. Srivatsa shared copies of MUDA ordering allotment of sites to two land-losers. In one of the orders dated June 15, 2024, then MUDA Commissioner Dinesh Kumar awarded 98,206 sq. ft of developed land to the heir of the original owner of the 8.14 acres of land that had been acquired by MUDA for the development of Gokulam layout. The acquisition proceedings for Gokulam layout in Mysuru started in 1968.

In another order, dated October 7, 2023, the MUDA Commissioner had awarded a total of 81,670 sq. ft of developed land to the wife of the owner of a parcel of land measuring 7.03 acres to acquire which MUDA had started proceedings in 1989.

Mr. Srivatsa said the orders issued by MUDA for allotting such large parcels of developed land in the upmarket residential layouts in the city in lieu of the land whose physical possession MUDA had taken several years ago had several loopholes. “In one case, the application for allotment of land by the land-loser had been made after the actual orders were issued,” he said.

In some instances, land-losers had been allotted sites far in excess of their entitlement, according to sources. If a land-loser is entitled to 30 sites of 30x40 ft dimension in accordance with the quantum of land acquired by MUDA, she or he would be allotted 60 sites of 30x40 dimension.

How CM’s family figures

Mr. Siddaramaiah’s wife owned about 3 acres and 16 guntas of land at Kesare near the Outer Ring Road in the northern part of Mysuru city. After developing Devanur 3rd Stage, also known as Rajeev Nagar 3rd Stage, on the land belonging to Ms. Parvathi and distributing the sites created in the layout, MUDA in 2021 ordered allotment of residential sites measuring a total of 38,284 sq. ft, under its 50:50 scheme for land-losers, to her.

Under the 50:50 scheme brought in by MUDA in November 2020, land-losers are entitled to 50% of the developed land. Out of every acre of undeveloped land, about 23,000 to 24,000 sq. ft of developed land is available for residential sites while the remaining is set aside for utilities. “So, under the 50:50 scheme, the available developed land is equally divided among MUDA and the land-loser, each of whom is entitled to around 11,500 to 12,000 sq. ft for every acre,” said sources in MUDA.

But, MUDA’s decision to allot 14 sites residential sites measuring a total of 38,284 sq. ft. to Ms. Parvathi at its Vijayanagar 3rd and 4th Stage layouts situated in the southern part of Mysuru has raised questions. For, the market value of residential sites at Devanur 3rd Stage layout in northern and northeastern parts of the city is much less compared to that of sites at Vijayanagar 3rd and 4th Stage layouts. Mr. Siddaramaiah, however, has claimed that MUDA allotted sites at Vijayanagar as sites were not available in Devanur 3rd Stage layout. Also, he has emphasised that the alternative sites were allotted to his wife under the 50:50 scheme during the BJP regime.

Byrathi Suresh releases details of land allotted in Mysuru

66 The Mysore Urban Devel-opment Authority (MUDA) allotted sites to many opposition leaders", said Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh. He said, speaking at a press conference, "The BJP and MS leaders and their supporters were allotted many sites in Mysu-ru". He presented the supporting documents. He read out a list of the leaders of the opposition parties and their supporters who benefitted. "There is no scam in MUDA. BJP and JDS are trying to create a scam artificially. And, these MPs are also raising this issue in Parliament. But they never questioned the injustice caused to the 7.50 crore people of Karnataka", he said. He accused the leaders of both the parties of "using the assembly for their politics", adding, "now, they are also using the Parliament in the same way".

Allotted sites

• Allotted sites to H D Deve Gowda and his aides "In 1984 H D Deve Gowda and his family members and aides were allotted many sites from MUDA", said Byrathi Suresh. He released a list of the allotted sites in the press conference.
• Name: H D Kumaras-wamy Relation: Son Location of site: Indus-trialArea 3rd Stage Site No: 17B Area 300x300 feet Year of allotment: 1984
• Name: Jayamma w/o Honnappa Relation: Mother-in-law of his first son Location of site: Saras-wathipura Site No: 1796 Area: 50x70 feet Year of allotment: 1984
• Name: Prameela, D/o of Javaregowda Relation: sister Location of site: Saras-wathipura, 4th Block Site No: 211
• Area: 40x50 feet Year of allotment: 1984
• Name: Susheelamma. daughter of wife's sister (minor) Location of site: Saras-wathipura, 4th Block Site No: 726/H Area: 40x60 feet Year of allotment: 1984
• Name: Dharmapal. close relative Location of site: Saras-wathipura, 4th Block Site No: 935, 932 Area: 40x60 feet Year of allotment: 1984
• Name: B C Hemavathi, close relative Location of site: Saras-wathipura, 4th Block Site No: 79
• Area: 40x60 feet Year of allotment: 1984
• Name: B L Shankar, supporter Location of site: Banni-mantapa Site No: 1199 Area: 50x80 feet Year of allotment: 1984
• Name: M Rajendra. close relative Location of site: Mysuru Site No: 1799 Area: 50x80 feet Year of allotment: 1984
• Name: K P Susheela, close relative Location of site: T Block, Jayanagar Site No: 352/N Area: 50x60 feet Year of allotment: 1984
• Name: Pushpavathi, close relative Location of site: T Koppalu, Mysuru Site No: 158 Area: 30x40 feet Year of allotment: 1984
• Land allotted to opposition leaders Name: C N Manjegowda Village: Hinkal Survey No: 337 Area: 1 acre
• Name: G T Devegowda Village: Eranagere Survey No: 14/1 Area: 2 acres and 25 guntas
• Name: G T Devegowda Village: Eranagere Survey No: 14/1
• Area: 2 acres and 25 guntas
• Name: G T Devegowda Village: Madagalli Survey No: 17 Area: 1 acre
• Name: C N Manjegowda Village: Devanur Survey No: 91 Area: 2 acres and 25 guntas
• Name: U N Shekhar Village: Nachanahalli Survey No: 20 and 24 Area: 1 acre and 26 guntas
• Name: C N Manjegowda Village: Kesare Survey No: 450 Area: 4 acres and 15 guntas
• Name: H Vishwanath Village Belavetta Survey No: 32 Area: Half gunta
• Name: Gangaraju Village: Hutagalli Survey No: 40/1 Area: 1.50 guntas
• Name: Gangaraju Village: Kuppaluru Survey No. 36/1 Area: 16 guntas
• Name: C N Manjegowda Village: Mysuru Survey No: 86 Area: 7 acres and 8 guntas
• Name: Ju. Mahadevas-wamy Village: Hinkal
• Survey No: 255/1 and 257 Area: 34 guntas
• Name: BGS Village: Malalavadi Survey No: 7/1A Area: 11 guntas
• Name: Ju.Shivakumar Village: Ayyajanahundi Survey No: 16 Area: 9 guntas
• Name: Sa Ra Mahesh Village: Dattagalli Survey No: 130-3 Area: 9 guntas
• Name: Sa Ra Mahesh Village: Bogadi Survey No: 170, 171. 173 Area: 2 acres and 11 guntas

Governor's Notice Muda scam

Karnataka Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot has issued a show-cause notice to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah as a precursor to sanctioning his prosecution in the Mysuru site allotment scam, rattling the ruling Congress whose boss is facing arguably his most difficult political headwinds.

Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot yet to take action on the petition filed by activist TJ Abraham seeking his sanction to prosecute Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in connection with the alleged scam in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA), speculation is rife about the former referring the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a probe.

In response to the petition by Abraham on July 26, the Governor had issued a show-cause notice to the CM on the same day seeking a reply. But on August 1, the Council of Ministers, in Siddaramaiah’s absence, had passed a resolution advising the Governor to withdraw the show-cause notice and reject the petition.

Whether the Governor gives sanction for prosecution or refers the case to the CBI remains to be seen.

Governor Gehlot has taken the opinion of the legal advisors to ensure that there is no friction between the Raj Bhavan and the State Government, said a Constitutional expert.

Complaint against Siddaramaiah in court

A criminal complaint has been filed against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in connection with the alleged MUDA scam. Siddaramaiah has been accused of misuse of power to forge documents to claim the MUDA land as his family property.

The Private Criminal Complaint (PCR), filed by activist Snehamayi Krishna on Thursday in the court of the people's representatives, is listed for hearing on August 9.

What is Muda scam?

In the MUDA 'scam', it is alleged that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru, which had higher property value as compared to the location of her land which had been "acquired" by the MUDA. The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.16 acres of her land, where MUDA developed a residential layout. Under the controversial scheme, MUDA allotted 50 per cent of developed land to the land losers in lieu of undeveloped land acquired from them for forming residential layouts. Opposition and some activists have also claimed that the Parvathi had no legal title over 3.16 acres of land. The Congress government on July 14 constituted a single member inquiry commission under former High Court Judge Justice P N Desai to probe the MUDA 'scam'.

In response to the petition by Abraham on July 26, the Governor had issued a show-cause notice to the CM on the same day seeking a reply. But on August 1, the Council of Ministers, in Siddaramaiah’s absence, had passed a resolution advising the Governor to withdraw the show-cause notice and reject the petition. Whether the Governor gives sanction for prosecution or refers the case to the CBI remains to be seen. Governor Gehlot has taken the opinion of the legal advisors to ensure that there is no friction between the Raj Bhavan and the State Government.

Is there a legal exception?

Like other public servants, the Chief Minister is not totally shielded from legal action. There are some precautions, though. For instance, before filing a lawsuit, the governor of a state may need to give his or her approval.

Court proceedings

If the governor approves prosecution against the CM, the case will go to court. There the Chief Minister is treated like any other accused. The court process involves framing charges, presenting evidence and conducting a trial.

Political implications

Legal action against the chief minister usually has significant political implications, as it can lead to resignation demands, political instability and impact on the governance of the state. In short, legal action against the Chief Minister involves a legal process bound by certain constitutional and legal safeguards.

Next steps

Siddaramaiah closeted at his official residence Kaveri where he held talks with some of his Cabinet colleagues and legal advisor AS Ponnanna. Siddaramaiah is likely to challenge in court the Governor’s sanction for prosecution.

Can a Chief Minister Be Arrested? What Law Says

In the eyes of the law, every Indian citizen is equal. Chief ministers are not given any immunity from arrest during their time in office. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC), the law enforcement agency can arrest any person against whom an arrest warrant has been issued by the court.

A CM can only be arrested if there is enough reason to believe that the accused would abscond, will try to destroy evidence, or act in a way so as to avoid the legal process, the report said. Moreover, a CM could be removed from office only when he is convicted in a case. The CM is not legally prohibited from holding office while under investigation.

As per the law, only the President of India and governors of states are given protection from arrest in both civil and criminal cases while in office. Article 361 in the Constitution Of India 1949 says, "No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President, or the Governor of a State, shall issue from any court during his term of office."

The Supreme Court had earlier said in an order that while considering prosecution against cabinet members and the chief minister, the governor can act independently without the recommendation of the council of ministers. "...it was rightly thought that in deciding to sanction or not to sanction the prosecution of a Chief Minister, the Governor would act in the exercise of his discretion and not with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers," a Supreme Court order in 2004.

"If the chief minister or an Assembly member has to be arrested even in a criminal case, then first of all, the approval has to be taken from the Speaker of the House. The arrest can be made only after the approval of the Assembly Speaker."

A look at CM who faced arrests

Arvind Kejriwal:As Kejriwal becomes first sitting CM to be held. With the Enforcement Directorate (ED) arresting Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) supremo Arvind Kejriwal. connection with the alleged liquor policy scam, Kejriwal became the first sitting CM to have got arrested by any agency.

A look at ex-CMs who faced arrests

Lalu Prasad Yadav: Lalu Prasad, a former Bihar CM, was put behind the bars in connection with the fodder scam, which revolved around the misappropriation of public funds earmarked for purchasing of livestock feed. He was also accused of diverting substantial amounts of public money over an extended period. The scheme involved the creation of fake bills to facilitate the embezzlement. The scandal came to light in the 1990s. In 2013, Lalu Prasad was found guilty in one case, resulting in a five-year prison sentence and his disqualification from holding elected office.

Jagannath Mishra: Three-time former CM of Bihar Jagannath Mishra was first jailed in 1997. He too was convicted in September 2013 and sentenced to four years in jail.

J Jayalalithaa: Jayalalithaa was the first sitting chief minister of the country to demit office and be arrested in connection with the disproportionate assets case. The late former chief minister of Tamil Nadu faced a high-profile corruption case, accused of amassing assets beyond her known income during her tenure. Allegations included owning extensive properties, jewelry and other assets believed to be acquired through "questionable" means. In 2014, she was convicted and sentenced to four years in prison, leading to her removal as chief minister. She appealed and was acquitted in 2015, regaining her position. The Karnataka government, however, challenged her acquittal and in 2017, the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. Jayalalithaa passed away before the verdict.

B S Yeddyurappa: Former Karnataka CM B S Yeddyurappa was charged with favouring his sons in land allotments during his tenure. A Lokayukta report of July 2011 found enough evidence to recommend investigation. BSY, as he is known, was jailed in October 2011 but granted bail after 23 days.

Om Prakash Chautala: Om Prakash Chautala, a former chief minister of Haryana, was embroiled in a corruption case regarding teacher recruitment in the early 2000s. Allegations pointed to irregularities and corrupt practices in the selection process. In 2013, he and his son Ajay were convicted on various charges, including cheating and forgery, receiving 10-year prison sentences. Despite appeals, their convictions were upheld by both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court in 2015.

Madhu Koda: Madhu Koda, former Jharkhand Chief Minister, was imprisoned for corruption during his tenure. He faced charges of money laundering and accumulating disproportionate assets. Koda was allegedly involved in a mining scandal and accused of granting mining contracts for bribes. According to a report, he and his associates gained over Rs 4,000 crore through such practices. After arrest in 2009, he was released on bail in 2013, but his properties worth Rs 144 crore were attached in a money-laundering case. In 2017, he was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison with a Rs 25 lakh fine.

Chandrababu Naidu:Former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister and TDP supremo Chandrababu Naidu was arrested on September 9 for allegedly disappropriating funds from the Skill Development Corporation, which resulted in a purported loss of over Rs 300 crore to the state exchequer. He is currently out on interim bail, and his regular bail petition will be heard by Andhra Pradesh High Court on November 10.

Hemant Soren:Jharkhand Mukti Morcha chief Hemant Soren, who resigned as the chief minister of Jharkhand on January 31, 2024, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate hours in a land scam case. Hemant Soren tendered his resignation several hours after the central agency grilled him. JMM Vice President and Soren family loyalist Champai Soren, who was also a Minister, was named as the successor to Hemant Soren.

Cases Against CM Siddaramaiah(Muda scam)

Abraham, who serves as the President of the Karnataka Anti-Graft and Environmental Forum, complained alleging that Siddaramaiah deliberately omitted his wife’s ownership of the aforementioned land in his 2023 Assembly election affidavit. He argued that this omission was made with full knowledge and with possible ulterior motives, citing violations under Section 125A and Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, as well as various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

05.07.2024: RTI activists say, Muda had acquired a total of 130 acres of land in the northeast of Mysuru to form Hanchya-Sathgalli A and B Zone and Devanur III Stage layouts. This parcel of land included the plot that belonged to Sid daramaiah’s wife, Parvathi. The urban body developed a total of 8,486 sites in these layouts and distributed them in 2001-02. It is unclear how much of the 130 acres of land was used to develop these sites and what portion of the unused land was denotified.

Meanwhile, social worker Snehamayi Krishna has now filed a complaint with Vijayanagara police alleging that Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvathi, brother-in-law Mallikarjuna, and others created fake

documents to acquire land illegally from an SC member.

25.07.2024:Bengaluru : In the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (Muda) site allotment scam, Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah may face legal troubles as antigraft activist and advocate TJ Abraham has announced plans to seek governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot’s consent for the CM’s prosecution.

08.08.2024:A criminal complaint has been filed against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in connection with the alleged MUDA scam. Siddaramaiah has been accused of misuse of power to forge documents to claim the MUDA land as his family property. The Private Criminal Complaint (PCR), filed by activist Snehamayi Krishna in the court of the people's representatives.

13.08.2024:A new complaint has been lodged with Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot, alleging Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's involvement in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land scam. The complaint filed by social activist Snehamayi Krishna accused the Chief Minister of misusing his power and violating legal procedures in connection with the allocation of land by MUDA. The complaint, which has been accepted by the Governor's office, specifically demanded action into the alleged illegalities surrounding a deed of relinquishment related to a property in question.

Siddaramaiah Election affidavits and Muda Scam

Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his wife B M Parvati have been at the epicentre of the 4000-crore Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam over the ownership of 3.16-acre agricultural land. Siddarmaiah had submitted 3 contradictory election affidavits during the 2013, 2018 and 2023 Karnataka Vidhan Sabha elections concerning the said land parcel. For the unversed, the 3.16-acre agricultural land was bought by the Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law B M Mallikarjunaswamy during the 2004-2005 period. Mallikarjunaswamy had gifted the land parcel to his sister and the Karnataka CM’s wife, B M Parvati, in 2010.

No mention of land parcel in 2013 election affidavit of Siddaramaiah

Although it had been 3 years by then, the 2013 election affidavit of Siddaramaiah did not show ownership of any agricultural land by his wife.

“2013: The poll affidavit filed by Siddaramaiah, three years after the land was received as a gift by his wife, indicates no agricultural land ownership by her during the period.

“The election affidavit of the CM in 2013 does not mention the acquisition of the 3.16 acres. It is a violation of the election code of conduct and violation of Representation of People Act.

Contradictions in the 2018 election affidavit:In 2014, the Karnataka CM and his wife BM Parvati claimed that Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) acquired the 3.16-acre agricultural land without informing them and sought an alternate site in exchange.

But the election affidavit of Siddaramaiah in the 2018 Karnataka election shows otherwise.

“2018: Siddaramaiah’s affidavit mentions his wife’s ownership of the land. “Gift received from my brother B M Mallikarjunaswamy, Dt 20-10-2010,” says the column for agricultural land owned by the CM’s spouse.”

New MUDA scheme and the 2023 election affidavit

In 2020, the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) formulated a 50:50 alternate land allocation scheme.

A year later, the governmental agency allotted 38,284 sq feet of alternate land (0.88 acres) in the Vijayanagar area of Mysuru to Siddaramaiah’s wife BM Parvati. The land area was equivalent to 14 housing sites (valued at ₹20 crores).

As per The Indian Express, the 2023 election affidavit read, “Shows allotment of 37,190.09 sq ft of land by MUDA in exchange for the Kesare village land in the column for non-agricultural land held by Siddaramaiah’s spouse in April 2023.”

Pointed out that Karnataka’s Record for Rights, Tenancy and Crops still showed BM Parvati as the owner of the 3.16 acres for the 2023-24 period in contravention of the 2023 election affidavit of Siddaramaiah.

Differential pricing of acquired land and MUDA scam

• The Opposition BJP and JDS in Karnataka have demanded that Siddaramaiah return the 14 housing sites given to him. The Karnataka CM fired back by putting forth the demand of ₹62 crores for 3.16 acres of agricultural land, gifted to his wife by his brother-in-law.
• Interestingly, the value of the said land parcel was mentioned as ₹25 lakhs in the 2018 election affidavit of Siddaramaiah. The glaring difference in the pricing was also highlighted by the Opposition parties in the State.
• These allegations and more form the basis of the ‘MUDA scam‘, the raging controversy in the political spheres of Karnataka.
• According to activist S Krishna, B M Mallikarjunaswamy lied about buying the 3.16-acre agricultural land from a Dalit farmer in 2004-2005.
• He said that the brother-in-law of Siddaramaiah owned the land parcel using fabricated records and that the land was acquired by MUDA in back in 1992.
• BJP leader Vishwanath added a new angle to the controversy by highlighting that Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law could not have purchased the land from a Dalit. “The land was denotified in the name of the SC/ST owners and it could not have been bought,” he emphasised.
• Such a prohibition on the purchase of lands stems from the 1979 law – The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act.
• While Siddaramaiah has refused any wrongdoing, the Opposition is firm in its demand for CBI probe into the matter.