Karnataka High Court hears Siddaramaiah’s defense in MUDA land allocation case involving his wife.
Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, informed the Karnataka High Court that the controversial land allotment to his wife, Parvathi, by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) was done under the 2019 mandate of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led coalition government. Siddaramaiah has denied any personal involvement in the matter.
The case revolves around the 50:50 land allotment scheme introduced during the BJP’s tenure in 2019.
Under this scheme, MUDA compensated landowners whose lands were used without formal acquisition by offering them 50% of the developed area.
Parvathi, Siddaramaiah’s wife, received 14 developed land plots as compensation, which were allegedly much higher in value compared to the original three-acre plot she had.
Also Read: Prajwal Revanna Bail Hearing to Be Held In-Camera: Karnataka HC
Legal Defense by Senior Advocate Singhvi
In his defense, Senior Advocate Singhvi argued that the BJP government, which assumed power on July 26, 2019, passed a decision on November 14, 2019, granting MUDA the authority to independently compensate landowners.
He emphasized that Siddaramaiah played no role in the acquisition, sale, or de-notification of the land.
Singhvi further contended that MUDA was acting within the framework of the rules created by the previous government, including the controversial 50:50 scheme. Under this policy, landowners received 50% of developed land when MUDA utilized their property without formal acquisition.
Also Read: Kerala HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Director VK Prakash in Sexual Harassment Case
Governor’s Sanction for Prosecution
The Karnataka High Court was hearing Siddaramaiah’s challenge to the sanction granted by Karnataka Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot, allowing his prosecution in the MUDA case.
The sanction was issued on July 26, 2024, following complaints by activists TJ Abraham, Snehamai Krishna, and Pradeep Kumar SP.
The complainants alleged that Siddaramaiah’s wife was gifted the land by her brother Mallikarjuna Swamy, who had originally bought it in 2004.
MUDA later developed the land illegally, leading Parvathi to seek compensation. The activists claim that she received inflated compensation under the 50:50 scheme.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Governor’s office, argued that there was prima facie evidence for investigation.
He stated that the Governor acted independently, without relying on the advice of the Council of Ministers, as the latter had recommended against prosecution without substantial reasoning.
Court’s Queries and Reservation of Orders
Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, questioned the Council of Ministers’ impartiality, pointing out that the Chief Minister himself was facing prosecution.
The judge remarked, “Which Council of Ministers will tell the Governor that he should give sanction against their CM?”
Singhvi responded by alleging that one of the complainants, TJ Abraham, had a criminal history. However, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that whistleblowers often face such challenges.
The Court has closed all arguments and reserved its order on the matter.
Party Names: Siddaramaiah, Parvathi Siddaramaiah, Mallikarjuna Swamy, TJ Abraham, Snehamai Krishna, Pradeep Kumar SP.
Bench Details: Justice M Nagaprasanna.