BENGALURU: A senior counsel, representing a complainant fighting against the alleged illegal allotment of sites to the wife of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA), argued before the Karnataka High Court on Monday that when Siddaramaiah was chief minister in 2017, an undue advantage was shown in passing a resolution in MUDA to allot 14 alternative sites to CM’s wife BM Parvathi.
Senior counsel KG Raghavan, representing complainant Snehamayi Krishna, made the submission before Justice M Nagaprasanna, who is hearing a petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, challenging the sanction granted by Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to prosecute him in the MUDA case.
Raghavan pointed out that the scheme of allotting compensatory sites was cancelled immediately after the allotment of 50:50 compensatory sites to CM’s wife. The scheme was brought into force by amending rules in 2015 only to favour her. The governor rightly granted sanction for the probe which is necessary since the public confidence is eroding in public administration. It was evident from the fact that the government itself constituted a one-man committee headed by an IAS officer and a commission of inquiry headed by the former judge of the high court, he argued.
He contended that Mylaraiah was the original owner of the land, which was acquired by MUDA and for which the compensatory sites were given to Parvathi. But one Devaraja sought denotification of the land in 1995 and finally it was done in 1998. In 2004, Devaraju, who was not the owner, sold this property to Mallikarjun, Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law, who finally transferred it to Parvathi. There is a needle of suspicion which requires a probe, he added.
Raghavan submitted that the CM’s wife was not entitled to sites. Even assuming that she was, it is for only one site measuring 60x40 ft for 3 acres and 16 guntas land in question worth Rs 3.24 lakh but not 14 sites with a 50:50 scheme.
When the judge asked whether there should be an inquiry, Raghavan submitted that let there should be as everything was done to suit the requirement of the CM’s wife.
The court adjourned further arguments to September 9 because Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty sought time to argue.
