BENGALURU: The investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, revealed numerous illegalities in the allotment of sites to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife, including wielding of undue influence in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) by a person known to be close to Siddaramaiah, the accused No.1, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) stated in its protest petition filed before a special court for trial of criminal cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs.
The ED stated that these evidences were shared with Lokayukta police, but it was not considered in the report filed by them.
The protest petition sought the court not to accept the ‘B’ report (closure report) filed by the Lokayukta police against Siddaramaiah and his family members in the predicate offence over the alleged irregularities in the allotment of 14 sites to his wife by the MUDA, and issue necessary directions as deemed fit for investigation in the interest of justice.
Siddaramaiah and his wife B M Parvathy were accused No 1 and 2, respectively, among five accused, including the CM’s brother-in-law. After conducting the probe, the Lokayukta police filed a ‘B’ report recently. The complainant Snehamayi Krishna filed a protest petition against. The special court heard the arguments on the same and posted the matter for orders on April 3.
On Wednesday, stating that it is to be construed as an aggrieved person, or victim as they are prosecutors under the PMLA, the ED also filed a protest petition seeking rejection of the closure report filed by the Lokayukta police. Listing seven points as to why the closure report should not be accepted, the ED contended that the process of denotification of 3 acres and 16 guntas land was also shared, but the Lokayukta police did not consider it.
Stating that the evidence collected during the investigation under PMLA was shared with the Lokayukta police in November 2024 and January 2025, the ED stated that it obtained a copy of the ‘B’ report on March 26, 2025.
The evidences on development work undertaken on the 3 acres and 16 guntas land at Sy. No. 464 of Kesare village by a firm, before the purchase of the land by Mallikarjunaswamy, have not been considered in the report. Satellite images of the land obtained in 2001, 2002 and 2003 clearly shows that development work, including laying of roads, have been completed, the ED said.
According to the ED, though J Devaraju and Mallikarjunaswamy have claimed to have visited the land prior to the purchase, they could not have done so without using the roads constructed by MUDA to access the land. Hence, their contention that they were not aware of the development work undertaken by MUDA is not tenable.
Despite the development work, the land conversion was undertaken by the tahsildar and deputy commissioner. However, no mention of development work in the land is mentioned in these reports. This indicates undue influence. The same has not been considered by the Lokayukta police.
Referring to the private complaint filed by Krishna, the governor’s approval for investigation and the special court’s order for registration of crime, the ED stated that the details of evidences gathered clearly show a largescale scam in the allotment of sites by MUDA.