Bengaluru: The Special Court for Public Representatives (commonly called MLA/MP Court) in Bengaluru has reserved its order on the private complaint urging for a fair probe filed by Right To Information (RTI) activist from Mysuru Snehamayi Krishna against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, his wife B.M. Parvathi and others in the alleged irregularities in Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).

Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat adjourned the matter to Aug. 13 after hearing the arguments of senior counsel Lakshmi Iyengar yesterday. The Court will decide on whether there is prima facie material to refer the private complaint for an investigation by independent investigating agencies like the Lokayukta or the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Advocate Lakshmi Iyengar argued highlighting the alleged misuse of power by CM Siddaramaiah where, she said, that when Siddaramaiah served as the Dy.CM, he facilitated the denotification of land on behalf of an individual who was not the rightful owner. This land, located in Devanur village, had been developed by MUDA before 2004. Yet it was converted for other purposes.

“In 2004, the land was purchased from Devaraj by B.M. Mallikarjunaswamy, Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law. What is the source of funds used for the transaction?” Lakshmi Iyengar pointed out. The denotified land was purchased by Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law, who later gifted it to Parvathi in 2010, the advocate told the Court.

Lakshmi Iyengar raised questions over granting 14 compensatory sites at Vijayanagar, a posh area, to Parvathi, despite vacant sites being available in Devanur Layout, where the  land was situated.

“After Mallikarjunaswamy gifted the land to Parvathi, there was a period of silence until Siddaramaiah assumed the role of CM in 2014. Upon becoming the CM, Siddaramaiah requested compensation despite the land’s questionable ownership,” she argued.

Devaraj from whom the land was purchased by Mallikarjunaswamy, was not the rightful owner. Thus, the subsequent ownership claims by Mallikarjunaswamy and, ultimately, B.M. Parvathi is invalid. Despite this, a request for replacement sites was made, which, according to Lakshmi Iyengar, was illegal.

The counsel contended that under the law, the CM’s wife had no rightful claim to the 14 sites in question. Even if she were entitled, the maximum permissible allocation would be 4,800 square metres. However, she told the Court that the 14 sites were illegally obtained in a high-value bargain, suggesting an abuse of power by the CM.