Mysuru: The Mysuru Lokayukta Police, investigating the MUDA (Mysuru Urban Development Authority) site allotment case, have cleared Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, his wife B.M. Parvathi, and two others of any wrongdoing, citing a ‘lack of evidence.’

An interim 8,000-page ‘B’ report was submitted by Lokayukta Superintendent of Police (SP) T.J. Udesh, the Investigation Officer, to the Special Court for People’s Representatives in Bengaluru before Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat this morning.  A ‘B’ report is filed when there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a charge-sheet, effectively closing the case. Lokayukta personnel arrived at the Special Court for People’s Representatives with four bags containing 27 volumes of documents related to the MUDA scam investigation.

Speaking on the development, SP Udesh stated, “The investigation is progressing as per procedure. The documents submitted form a crucial part of the enquiry.”

Notice to complainant

Along with Siddaramaiah and Parvathi, the other accused were Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law (Parvathi’s brother) B.M. Mallikarjunaswamy and landowner J. Devaraju.

“Since the allegations against accused – 1 to accused – 4 in the case could not be substantiated due to a lack of evidence, the final report will be submitted to the High Court,” the Lokayukta Police stated in a letter to RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna, the complainant in the MUDA case.

“Further investigation will be conducted into the allegations of MUDA providing compensatory plots in the ratio of 50:50 from 2016 to 2024 and an additional final report will be submitted to the High Court,” the Lokayukta letter said.

The notice stated that Snehamayi Krishna may challenge the Lokayukta probe report within a week before the designated Magistrate.

Lokayukta’s clean chit has come as a big relief to Siddaramaiah with the High Court recently rejecting Snehamayi Krishna’s plea to transfer the case  to CBI.

Civil, not criminal

The notice stated that the Lokayukta Police conducted an investigation under various Sections of IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, against Siddaramaiah, Parvathi, Mallikarjunaswamy and Devaraju and found that the case came under civil dispute and thus not suitable for criminal investigation.

The notice said no sufficient proof was found to substantiate the charges against Siddaramaiah, his wife and two others. The probe found no criminal wrongdoing by them. The Lokayukta will submit its final report to the High Court under Section 173 (8) of the CrPC after completing the probe. 

According to the complaint, Parvathi was ‘gifted’ 3.16 acres of land at Survey Number 464 by her brother, Mallikarjunaswamy. This land was initially acquired, then denotified and subsequently bought by Mallikarjunaswamy. Despite being privately owned, it was developed by MUDA.

Mallikarjunaswamy claimed he purchased the land in 2004 and later gifted it to his sister. However, since MUDA had illegally developed the land, Parvathi sought compensation. She allegedly received highly inflated compensation, including 14 developed alternative sites that were significantly more valuable than the original 3.16 acres, under a 50:50 scheme.

Key findings of Lokayukta probe

• No evidence of influence: The Lokayukta investigation report found no evidence to support claims that CM Siddaramaiah influenced MUDA site allocations. His family members were also cleared of any wrongdoing. Parvathi has already returned the 14 sites she received. The land transfer between her and Mallikarjunaswamy was conducted legally.

• Errors in denotification: The report identified discrepancies in the denotification process involving land owner Devaraju, a Government employee who had concealed information.

• Official negligence: The investigation uncovered procedural errors by officials and a private company in acquiring land in Kesare village for layout development. L&T, the outsourced company, proceeded with development despite the land being denotified. Revenue officials, demonstrating negligence, completed the land conversion process from their office without conducting a site visit.

• Illegal land acquisition by MUDA: MUDA officials were found to have unlawfully acquired private land, raising concerns about the compensation offered. MUDA had decided to provide 38,000 sq. ft. of alternative land for 1,68,000 sq. ft., of acquired land relying on certain  High Court judgements.

• Need for further investigation: The Lokayukta report stressed the need for a thorough inquiry into the compensation given and the officials’ mistakes. The Lokayukta Police has filed a closure report in this case against the CM’s family and  landowner Devaraju.