© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Karnataka Governor Thawarchand Gehlot has allowed three private individuals to seek investigations against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on complaints of corruption in the allotment of 14 housing sites in Mysuru to the wife of the CM — in exchange for 3.16 acres of land allegedly acquired illegally by a local authority in the city.
The Governor’s order was dated August 16, and was communicated the following day. On August 19, hearing a challenge to the order by the chief minister, the Karnataka High Court paused “precipitative action” based on the Governor’s sanction until August 29, the next date of hearing.
In separate complaints, anti-corruption activists T J Abraham, Snehamayi Krishna, and Pradeep Kumar have alleged that the CM’s wife was an illegal beneficiary of a controversial land exchange scheme that was devised by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) in 2020 to resolve cases in which the authority had illegally acquired land without informing owners about the acquisition.
Siddaramaiah and the Congress party have denied the allegations. The Congress has pointed out that the launch of MUDA’s “50:50” scheme (to grant 50% of land in a developed locality in exchange for 50% of the land illegally acquired by MUDA), and the decision to allot 14 plots to Siddaramaiah’s wife under the scheme took place in 2020 and 2021 — when the BJP was in power in the state.
The three anti-corruption activists have questioned the original ownership of the 3.16-acre parcel of land, which was acquired by Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law in 2004, and subsequently gifted to Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvathi in 2010 before it was “illegally” acquired by MUDA.
The activists have alleged that MUDA had already acquired the land when it was bought by the CM’s brother-in-law.
Land exchange scheme
Until 2020, the compensation for people whose lands were wrongly acquired by MUDA without their knowledge was three times the value of the land, as stipulated by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
MUDA also had schemes for allotment of alternative land in the same undeveloped locality where it had wrongly acquired land at the rate of 40:60 (60% of land under development by MUDA for 40% of wrongly acquired land).
In one instance of wrongful acquisition of land in 2013, the land losers (Sundramma and others) did not accept monetary compensation, and the Karnataka HC directed MUDA to provide an equal measure (2 acres) of developed land as compensation.
According to former MUDA officials, the payment of three times the land cost as compensation (under the 2013 law) and the HC’s order to give 100% of alternative land to land losers became a huge burden on the Authority
MUDA then reportedly came up with the 50:50 alternative land allotment scheme under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Disposal of Plots in Lieu of Compensation for Land Acquisition) Rules, 1991.
However, on October 27, 2023, Siddaramaiah’s government halted the scheme after the state urban development department said it violated the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. District officials in Mysuru had flagged that the scheme did not conform to land compensation rules, and activists had alleged that even persons whose land had not been wrongly acquired were given alternative MUDA sites in developed localities.
According to the urban development department, a total 1,328 sites were allotted to individuals and organisations under the 50:50 scheme. Among them were the 14 developed housing sites that were given to Siddaramaiah’s wife in exchange for 3.16 acres of land. Several local Mysuru MLAs from the BJP and JDS also reportedly garnered lucrative MUDA properties through the scheme.
Allegations against CM
There are three specific allegations against Siddaramaiah. These are largely circumstantial in nature, and are not supported by documentary evidence.
ORIGINAL OWNERSHIP OF LAND: The 3.16 acres of land that was allegedly acquired illegally by MUDA around 2013 — for which the CM’s wife, Parvathi, got 14 plots in Mysuru in 2021 — had been purchased by B M Mallikarjun, the CM’s brother-in-law, in 2004. In 2010, Mallikarjun gifted the land to his sister.
It is alleged that Mallikarjun could not have bought the land (for Rs 5.95 lakh from J Devaraju, son of the original owner Ninga alias Javara, a Dalit) since it had already been taken over by MUDA in 2004. It has also been argued that under the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, land that has been given to an SC family by the state cannot be purchased.
However, the land is now considered as not falling under the 1978 Act since the original owner, Ninga alias Javara, was not a land grantee, and had bought the land for Rs 100 in an auction in 1935.
The CM has also produced records that show MUDA had acquired the land in 1997 but had dropped the acquisition the following year on the recommendation of a high level panel of the urban development department. The land was subsequently wrongly shown as acquired by MUDA, which led the CM’s wife to seek compensation in 2014.
The activists have said that the 1998 denotification, the 2004 land purchase, and a land conversion by Mallikarjun in 2005, were all carried out when Siddaramaiah was Deputy CM — first in the Janata Dal government of Chief Minister J H Patel and then in the Congress-JDS government of Chief Minister Dharam Singh — thus suggesting a conflict of interest.
Siddaramaiah has said it is far-fetched to make these connections.
DEVISING MUDA’S 50:50 SCHEME: It is alleged that the scheme, though launched in 2020, had been devised by Siddaramaiah during his tenure as CM from 2013 to 2018.
It is also alleged that MUDA’s December 30, 2021 decision to grant the 14 plots as compensation to Siddaramaiah’s wife was done after meetings in which the CM’s son, Yathindra Siddaramaiah, who was a local MLA between 2018 and 2023, participated along with other Congress, JDS, and BJP lawmakers.
Siddaramaiah has said that his wife’s request was made when he was CM in 2014, “but I told her that it would be wrong for me to decide when I am the CM”.
VALUE OF EXCHANGED LAND: Activist Abraham has alleged that the award of the 14 developed plots to the CM’s wife resulted in a loss of revenue to the state. While the cost of the 3.16 acres is officially estimated at Rs 3.5 crore, the 14 plots are estimated to cost Rs 8.5 crore as per the official guidance value. However, according to activists, the market value of the alternative sites given to the CM’s wife is estimated to be Rs 55.80 crore.
Siddaramaiah has claimed that his wife would be eligible for a compensation of Rs 62 crore for her 3.16 acres as per the norm of giving three times the market value under the Compensation Act.
Governor’s sanction
Gehlot has allowed investigations against Siddaramaiah under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) without giving specific reasons for the decision.
PCA: Following a 2018 amendment, Section 17A says that an inquiry against a public servant for alleged crimes committed in the line of their official duties can only be launched after sanction has been accorded for investigation.
The Karnataka government has argued that the Governor could not have given sanction to private persons, and that a police officer should have approached the Governor at the stage of the registration of an FIR on the basis of a court order, or through a suo motu decision by police.
Two of the complainants filed private complaints in court seeking investigations against Siddaramaiah prior to the grant of sanction by the Governor. One of these matters (T J Abraham PCR) is pending for orders; the second PCR (Snehamayi Krishna) is to be heard further.
The two complainants also filed complaints before Karnataka Police anti-corruption units seeking investigations prior to the Governor’s approval.
In the past, sessions courts have rejected private complaints for investigations against public servants in the absence of a sanction — including a corruption case filed in 2021 against former CM B S Yediyurappa by T J Abraham.
The HC had, however, said in this case that no sanction was needed for filing a private complaint; sanction was needed as per Section 17A of the PCA by the police after registering an FIR.
BNSS: Section 218 of the BNSS is relevant after a chargesheet is filed by the investigating agency. This section is similar to Section 197 of the previous Code of Criminal Procedure Act which mandated sanction by a competent authority for taking cognizance of cases filed against judges and public servants for actions taken in the course of official duties.
