Queries based on his role as Mysuru DC in conversion of 3.16-acre land at Survey No. 464, Kesare
Mysuru: Former bureaucrat and current Raichur MP G. Kumar Naik, who had earlier served as the Deputy Commissioner (DC) of Mysuru, was questioned for over two hours by Lokayukta Superintendent of Police T.J. Udesh yesterday from 12.30 pm, regarding the ongoing probe into the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotment scam.
Kumar Naik, during his tenure as Mysuru DC from 2002 to 2005, is alleged to have facilitated the conversion of 3 acres and 16 guntas of land in Survey Number 464 of Kesare. This land was purchased by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law, B.M. Mallikarjunaswamy, from J. Devaraju and later gifted to his sister B.M. Parvathi, CM’s wife.
In exchange for this land, Parvathi got 14 sites in Vijayanagar Third and Fourth Stages under MUDA’s controversial 50:50 ratio scheme.
Submissions before High Court
Social activist Snehamayi Krishna termed this land conversion (anyakrantha) as illegal and had submitted documents to High Court following which the Court directed the Mysuru Lokayukta SP to investigate.
Mallikarjunaswamy had purchased 3.16 acres in Survey Number 464 of Kesare from Devaraju. Later, based on the sale deed provided by Mallikarjunaswamy, Kumar Naik reclassified (anyakrantha) the land as agricultural. However, Krishna submitted documents to the Lokayukta and the Court, pointing out that the reclassification itself was illegal.
Krishna pointed out to the HC that Mallikarjuna Swamy issued a conditional sale deed on July 17, 2005, but the stamp paper for the agreement was purchased on July 22, 2005. Krishna questioned how the conditional sale deed could have been issued seven days earlier.
Sites to beneficiaries
MUDA had acquired 3.16 acres of land and developed a layout there, providing basic amenities like roads and underground drainage. MUDA had also approved and handed over five sites to beneficiaries.
Given this, Snehamayi Krishna raised questions about how Kumar Naik initiated the anyakrantha process. Additionally, Snehamayi Krishna pointed out that neither Mallikarjunaswamy’s signature nor any witness signatures were present in the conditional sale deed issued by Mallikarjunaswamy.
Kumar Naik told the investigators that land did not bear any indication of development of layout or trees when he and the then Tahsildar inspected the 3.16 acres at Kesare in 2005. However, the actual orders on conversion of the land had been passed by his successors, he said.
Naik defended the decision to convert land from agricultural to non-agricultural as it formed part of area earmarked for residential purposes in the master plan.
This post was published on October 20, 2024 7:54 pm