Bengaluru: The petitioner in the MUDA case, allegedly involving Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his family, claimed yesterday that the Advocate General was protecting the accused rather than safeguarding the Government’s interests.

Petitioner Snehamayi Krishna wrote a letter to Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, objecting to his legal opinion provided to the Urban Development (UD) Secretary concerning the property in survey number 464, located in Kesare village, Kasaba Hobli, on the outskirts of Mysuru city.

Krishna stated that he had obtained a copy of the opinion given by the Advocate General to the Secretary of UD Department and was surprised by it.

“Being a responsible officer, you have provided an opinion that protects the accused. Like someone ignorant of the law, you have failed to protect Government property, and I am seeking clarification and authorised documents in this regard,” Krishna wrote in his letter.

Seeks accountability

“Ours is a democratic country, and the people are supreme. You are paid from public funds and are accountable to the public. I am submitting this petition under Article 51A of the Constitution to question your actions and seek accountability,” he stated.

Krishna raised several legal questions, stating, “The law requires property worth more than Rs. 100 to be mandatorily registered. Is it not illegal to transfer property worth lakhs of rupees based solely on statements on white paper? Is it tenable for officers like you to support this?”

 “According to the relinquishment deed, the property rights were transferred to Mylarappa. How could it become the property of Ninga aka Javara after 23 years in 1993? The 1993 statement should have mentioned the relinquishment deed of 1968. Isn’t concealing this and obtaining a statement against the law a crime? Is this statement lawful according to you?”

Krishna also questioned how the revenue officers could transfer land in the name of the fourth accused, landowner J. Devaraju, and called for a probe into the influence behind these actions.

Fake allotment letters

“Why have you (Advocate General) not given your opinion on initiating action against the officers involved? “You have stated that the allotment of sites to the second accused, B.M. Parvathi, wife of CM Siddaramaiah, is legal. Even though the Government notification states that land allotments should not be made under the 50:50 ratio, fake allotment letters were created showing that such an allotment is allowed. Is this not a crime?”

“The minutes of the meeting were fraudulently created, and based on this, an allotment letter was issued. Is this not a crime? According to your opinion, the allotment of sites to CM Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvathi is appropriate. There is a rule that the allotment should be made in the locality where the acquired land is located. Parvathi should have been allotted sites in the Devanur Third Stage, not in the upscale Vijayanagar. Why was she given sites in Vijayanagar?”

Krishna said, “All these facts suggest that CM Siddaramaiah used his influence to have the sites allotted in his wife’s name when he was the Leader of  the Opposition.”

In his 10-page submission, Krishna warned, “If you do not provide clarifications in this regard, it will be inevitable to complain about you with the appropriate authorities to initiate action.”