City NGO Public Cause writes to State Chief Secretary

Mysore/Mysuru: Mysuru-based Public Cause, an organisation for ventilating the common problems of the people, has written to State Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh accusing the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) of being nonchalant to retain its land at Survey No. 93 in Nachanahallipalya Layout in city.

In his complaint, S. Thulaseedharan, Secretary, Public Cause, has said that a 14 acre 22 guntas of land located at Sy. No. 93 in Nachanahallipalya Layout formed and approved by the then City Improvement Trust Board (CITB), now MUDA, in 1984, was entangled in a legal battle since 40 years and MUDA has not filed any objections thus making an all out effort to ensure the property smoothly goes into the hands of private individuals through a judicial process, for extraneous considerations and with ulterior motives.

Thulaseedharan, in his complaint dated Aug. 5, 2024 states, “In the year 1993, some MUDA officials had set up certain private individuals as Claimants for this property and an O.S. No.87/1993 was filed in Court of the Principal Judge, Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, cleverly impleading MUDA as 4th Respondent.  The case went on from 10.3.1993 to 29.4.2015 (22 years, 1 month and 20 days), and yet MUDA did not file a single line of Statement of Objection to the case. This case is only the “tip of the iceberg” of MUDA scams by which it sets up its own private individuals as Claimants for its property and facilitate them to grab its properties.”

Further, he has accused MUDA of being negligent with respect to an Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed before the High Court of Karnataka. “The Case went in appeal to the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No. 1165/2015.  In this Appeal, as well, MUDA has not taken adequate steps to defend the case and save its prime property in Sy. No. 93, Nachanahalli, Mysore. It appears to have engaged some Counsels, just for saving its face, somewhere in the year 2021, but till today, the Statement of Objections / Written Statement to this Appeal has not been filed by MUDA,” he said.

Thulaseedharan has claimed that MUDA has not been defending the case effectively with respect to Writ Petition (WP) No. 10746 of 2017 (LA-UDA) pending before the High Court of Karnataka in Bengaluru. “MUDA and its Special Land Acquisition Officer are Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively.  This case in respect of the property in Survey No. 93, Nachanahalli, Mysuru, is pending for adjudication.  The High Court, in its order dated 8.12.2020, dismissed the application by the Respondents to vacate the Interim Order of status quo on 1.2.2017. It is understood that this WP is also not being effectively defended by MUDA,” he stated in his complaint to the Chief Secretary.

In his letter, Thulaseedharan has requested Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh to set up a Battery of Lawyers to ensure that the cases filed against MUDA in respect of its property in Sy.No. 93 in Nachanahallipalya may be effectively defended to ensure that MUDA’s right, title and interest over the property is protected at all costs.

He has also requested the Chief Secretary to direct the MUDA Commissioner to set up a Task Force with adequate men, materials, machineries, armed security personnel, to dismantle, demolish and destroy all the edifices of encroachments and take back MUDA’s land in about six months time.

“The CITB, and now its new avatar, MUDA, has been in existence for more than 121 years.  But till today, it has not established a system of preserving its property records. The Commissioner may be directed to digitise the property records of MUDA, within a period of 6 months and submit these records to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development (UD) Department, for safe custody. Quarterly Reports may be submitted to the Principal Secretary, UD, updating the status of its properties, cases, if any,” said the complaint.

Tip of the iceberg

A Layout formed by MUDA in 1984 got entangled in legal battle, which is common to MUDA as we know. But in this case, MUDA did not file objection purportedly to help those who filed cases so that the property smoothly goes into the hands of private individuals legally through the judicial process. There is no doubt MUDA has connived with the private individuals with ulterior motives.

The irony is that the MUDA Board members with people’s representatives — MLAs, MLCs, MPs and others — remained silent that an NGO should expose this scam. MUDA is mired in so many scams that this is only the “tip of the iceberg,” says the complainant Public Cause.—Ed