In a major development, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed its objections with the Special Court for MPs/MLAs against the closure report submitted by the Karnataka Lokayukta in the high-profile Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam, in which Chief Minister Siddaramaiah is named as accused number one.
The ED has also urged the court not to accept the closure report filed by the investigating agency in the predicate offence/Karnataka Lokayukta, Mysuru, in the interest of justice and issue necessary directions as deemed fit for investigation in the case.
The development is seen as a setback for Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who was to travel to Delhi to meet the party high command after a long gap amidst escalated internal fighting within the ruling Congress.
The ED has filed its objections through the Assistant Director, ED, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), stating: “The investigation undertaken revealed illegalities in the land acquisition, allotment, generation of proceeds of crime and routing/layering of the same, undue influence in allotment.”
“The evidences/information collected during the investigation under the PMLA, 2002, was shared with the Lokayukta police, Mysuru, through a letter. Presently, the Lokayukta had filed a report… The perusal of the report reveals that the evidences on illegalities in the process of denotification, the 3 acre 16 gunta land at Survey number 464 of Kesare village shared by this directorate to the Lokayukta police have not been considered in the report,” the ED said.
The ED also claimed that despite the land being purchased by Mallikarjunaswamy (accused 3 and brother-in-law of Siddaramaiah) in 2004 and gifted to B.M. Parvati (second accused and CM Siddaramaiah’s wife) in 2010, no compensation had been claimed from MUDA till 2014, after a period of 10 years. This aspect has not been considered in the report.
The investigation under the PMLA had revealed numerous illegalities in the process of allotment, including wielding of undue influence in MUDA by an individual known to be close to Siddaramaiah. The evidence on the same was shared with the Lokayukta police. However, it has not been considered in the report, the agency said.
“The details of evidence gathered, which clearly show the large-scale scam in allotment of sites by MUDA, including details of cash, movable/immovable properties being received by MUDA officers for making illegal allotments, we shared with the Lokayukta police. However, no action has been initiated on the same,” the ED stated.
The evidence of development work having been under taken at the land in question by L&T Limited before its purchase by Mallikarjunaswamy has not been considered in the report, as satellite images of the land obtained during the years 2001, 2002. and 2003 clearly shows that development work, including the laying of roads, has been completed in the land, the ED said.
Though J. Devaraju (accused 4) and Mallikarjunaswamy have claimed to have visited the land prior to the purchase, they could not have done so without using the roads constructed by the MUDA to access the land. Hence, their contention that they were not aware of the development work undertaken by the MUDA is not tenable, the ED argued.
Despite the same, they had not raised any objection or claimed any compensation from MUDA for utilisation of the land at the time of purchase of the land, the ED noted.
About undue influence, the ED claimed: “Despite the development work, the land conversion has been undertaken by the Revenue Department i.e. Tehsildar and DC. This has been undertaken at the request and participation of Mallikarjunaswamy (CM Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law).”
“However, no mention of development work in the land is mentioned in these reports despite evidence to the contrary. This indicates undue influence. The same has not been considered in the report,” the ED said.
Social activist Snehamayi Krishna had lodged a complaint in the MUDA scam involving alleged illegal allotment of 64 sites to CM Siddaramaiah’s family by the MUDA. The Special Court had directed to file the PCR on Sept 25, 2024.
The Lokayukta police in Mysuru had filed an FIR naming CM Siddaramaiah and his family members and others as accused persons. The ED had registered a case on October 1, 2024 and investigation under the PMLA was taken up.
The Lokayukta had filed a closure report against CM Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvati, brother-in-law Mallikarjunaswamy and land owner Devaraju.
The Karnataka High Court on March 7 quashed the summons issued by the ED to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvathi and Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh in connection with the case.
The petitioner, Krishna, filed a complaint with the Central Vigilance Committee (CVC) on March 12 against senior IPS officers serving in the Karnataka Lokayukta, questioning the clean chit to the CM and his family members.
He had also filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, questioning the single bench order quashing his appeal for a CBI investigation into the MUDA case.
(With inputs from IANS)
