In a significant legal development that offers substantial relief to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, a Special Court for Elected Representatives in Bengaluru on Tuesday accepted the Lokayukta’s closure report in the MUDA land allotment case. The court’s decision effectively granted a clean chit to Siddaramaiah and three other accused, bringing this phase of the long-running controversy to a close.
Special Judge Santosh Gajanan Bhat dismissed a petition filed by complainant Snehamayi Krishna, who had challenged the Lokayukta’s findings and sought rejection of its B Report. The petitioner had urged the court to order further prosecution, arguing that the investigation was inadequate. However, the court upheld the Lokayukta’s conclusions, ruling that there was no prosecutable evidence to proceed against the accused.
With the dismissal of the petition, the case against Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvathi B M, and their aides Mallikarjuna Swamy and Devaraju has been formally closed. The court observed that the materials on record did not disclose any criminal offence warranting trial, thereby ending the proceedings for want of legally sustainable evidence.
The matter pertained to allegations of irregularities in the allotment of 14 residential sites by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority. The controversy arose from MUDA’s decision to allot compensatory plots in Mysuru to Parvathi B M in exchange for a 3.16-acre parcel of land in Kesare village, which she claimed to have inherited through her family. The complainant alleged that the ownership of the original land was doubtful and that the compensatory allotment caused financial loss to the state exchequer.
Acting on these allegations, the Lokayukta had registered an FIR and carried out a detailed investigation. The probe involved scrutiny of land records, title documents, and the procedures followed by MUDA while making the allotments. After examining the evidence, the Lokayukta concluded that there was no material to establish criminal conspiracy, abuse of official position, or receipt of illegal gratification by the accused.
The court, while accepting the closure report, also dismissed a contempt petition filed against the investigating officer. It rejected allegations that the probe had been conducted in a biased or deliberately flawed manner, noting that the investigation appeared comprehensive and based on available records.
At the same time, the court clarified that its order would not impact investigations against other accused persons named in the wider MUDA land allotment matter. It also made it clear that the Enforcement Directorate could continue with its parallel investigation under money-laundering laws, which focuses on the financial aspects linked to the land transactions.
The ruling provides notable legal relief to Siddaramaiah, who has consistently maintained that the case was politically motivated and lacked substantive merit. While this order closes the Lokayukta proceedings against him and the other accused, probes into the broader MUDA controversy by other agencies remain ongoing.
