Congress cites BJP leader R Ashok’s 2011 example as BJP attacks Karnataka CM over wife returning 14 MUDA sites

An FIR was filed against the Chief Minister, his wife, and others on September 28 by the Karnataka Lokayukta police. The case pertains to the allotment of 14 housing sites to the Chief Minister’s wife in 2021 in exchange for 3.16 acre of land acquired by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). The FIR was registered following a special court’s reference and the Governor’s approval to name the Chief Minister in the case. On Monday, the Chief Minister’s wife offered to return the disputed sites, which MUDA has accepted.

Congress Ministers Cite BJP Leader’s Land Return

The Congress ministers criticized BJP leaders for attacking Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his wife, B M Parvati, over their decision to return the housing sites, while R Ashoka, the BJP Leader of Opposition, had similarly returned land after corruption allegations surfaced against him.

The Congress ministers claimed that Ashoka illegally purchased a 32-gunta property in Lottegollahalli, South Bengaluru, nearly 25 years after it was acquired by the BDA in 1978. He later managed to have the land denotified during B S Yediyurappa’s tenure as BJP Chief Minister in 2009.

In 2011, when a retired IAF officer and activist, Wing Commander G B Atre, sought to file a corruption case against Ashoka, Yediyurappa, and others, Ashoka returned the 32 guntas of land to the BDA. The Karnataka High Court later used this return of the land as grounds to dismiss criminal proceedings against Ashoka, as Congress leaders pointed out on Wednesday.

“Leader of the Opposition R Ashoka, who should be acting responsibly, claimed that returning the 14 sites by the Chief Minister’s wife was an admission of guilt. We want to highlight what happened in his own case,” said Home Minister G Parameshwara during the press conference.

“There was a major land scam in Lottegollahalli involving several crores. The land, 32 guntas in survey numbers 10/1, 10/11/F1, and 10/11/F2, was acquired by the BDA. The final notification for acquisition was issued on August 31, 1978,” Parameshwara explained.

“In 2003 and 2007, R Ashoka bought this land from the original owner, Ramaswamy, despite it being acquired by the BDA. Two registrations were done. Today, the land is worth Rs 100 crores,” he added.

“On October 16, 2009, the land was denotified via Ramaswamy, although Ashoka should have initiated the denotification. The then CM, B S Yediyurappa, ordered the denotification, which was finalized within two months, on December 31, 2009,” Parameshwara continued.

He also noted that when a complaint was filed against Ashoka by the retired IAF officer, Ashoka sought to return the land, executing a registered gift deed to the BDA on August 27, 2011. The BDA accepted the return.

“Now, when Siddaramaiah’s wife has returned the land, they are making all sorts of accusations, but they remain silent about what happened in their own case. Ashoka claimed ownership of land that didn’t belong to him, and only after the complaint did he return it. Yet, he now accuses the CM’s wife of land-grabbing,” said Parameshwara.

He added, “They have a lizard in their own plate but point to a worm in ours.”

2019 High Court Order in R Ashoka Case

The Congress leaders highlighted a Karnataka High Court division bench order dated January 9, 2019, which dismissed criminal proceedings against Ashoka after he returned the land he had illegally purchased following the corruption complaint.

The High Court’s 2019 order rejecting a probe against BJP leaders stated, “Suffice it to observe, for the present purpose, that with the land in question now being secured with the BDA, no purpose would be served by continuing with this petition any further on the reliefs as claimed; but it shall be open for the petitioner in taking recourse to regular remedies in accordance with law.”

“During the course of submissions, it has been pointed out that on 27.08.2011, the respondent No.8 (R Ashok) executed registered gift deed in favour of the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) in respect of the land aforesaid and it is, therefore, not in dispute that the land in question is now available with the BDA,” the High Court had further observed in the January 9, 2019, order.