From 2021, 4,948 allotment letters were obtained from MUDA office store room

Mysore/Mysuru: Under the controversial 50:50 ratio scheme, which has caused significant controversy and implicated prominent individuals, hundreds of acres of land were allotted as compensation in the form of plots.

This distribution took place in 23 villages of Mysuru taluk, covering 126 survey numbers. Officials from MUDA (Mysuru Urban Development Authority) granted these plots without following proper land acquisition procedures, leading to a scam of gargantuan proportions.

To prevent injustice to farmers, the Government had ordered that compensation under the 50:50 ratio scheme in the form of plots should be given to those who lost their land, either in the same or equivalent residential layouts.

However, despite this directive, MUDA officials, using unauthorised decisions, made                          during the MUDA Board meeting, allocated plots to intermediaries, influential persons, land developers and real estate mafias.

126 survey numbers in 23 villages

Under the 50:50 ratio scheme, MUDA officials allocated approximately 4,500 plots of various sizes as compensation, developed on hundreds of acres across 126 survey numbers in 23 villages of Mysuru taluk.

The Inquiry Committee, led by senior IAS Officer R. Venkatachalapathy, Commissioner of Urban Development Authorities and Town and Country Planning, discovered this irregularity in over 106 MUDA files.

The villages involved include Maragowdanahalli, Nachanahalli, Basavanahalli, Belavatha, Kesare, Bogadi, Nadanahalli, Kesare, Dattagalli, Devanur, Hinkal, Srirampura, Sathagalli, Kyathamaranahalli, Hebbal, Dattagalli, Eerangere, Malalavadi, Alanahalli, Mysuru, Hootagalli, Kurubarahalli, Chikkaharadanahalli, Sarakari Uttanahalli, and Ayyajayyanahundi.

The plots in these areas were allocated under the 50:50 ratio scheme, and the Inquiry Committee members have documented files related to these cases, noting violations of regulations in the allocation of plots across various survey numbers in the 23 villages.

Specifically, irregular allocations include 14 acres in survey numbers 30, 40 and 46 in Nachanahalli village, 1.27 acres in survey number 187/B, 20-35 acres in survey number 184/1, 18-39 acres in survey numbers 23, 31, and 32, 4 acres in survey number 40/C, 8-14 acres in survey numbers 57 and 77 in Maragowdanahalli, 8-16 acres in survey numbers 40, 41, and 42 in Basavanahalli.

Manipulation in Courts

Sources indicate that in some instances, such as the land acquisition in 1962, even if the original landowners were deceased, MUDA officers, through touts and intermediaries,                                               allegedly brought in other individuals using the same name to apply for plots.

When these individuals applied for plots using names similar to deceased persons, MUDA officers noted in the files that the land could not be granted. They then encouraged the applicants to file a case against MUDA in the High Court.

MUDA officers instructed the advocates representing MUDA to present the case in such a way that the applicants are benefitted, ensuring that the High Court ruled in their favour, granting them plots.

This manipulation allowed them to obtain Court orders claiming the need to provide compensation to the applicants in the form of alternative or compensatory plots. They used this as a cover, along with some Supreme Court judgments, State Government orders, and decisions of the MUDA Board, to officially issue plot allocations, making the process appear legal and transparent.

Hundreds of such cases have been uncovered in the files. Even more surprisingly, the MUDA Special Land Acquisition Officer noted in certain files that land adjacent to certain survey numbers, which were not notified for acquisition, was deemed acquired. Officials later enticed the original landowner with money to obtain a GPA (General Power of Attorney) and subsequently approved a plot in his name. A sale deed was then executed in favour of GPA holder. Such cases have been documented by Inquiry Committee.