ED Appeals to Special Court Against Closure Report in MUDA Case Involving CM Siddaramaiah
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The ED has lodged objections with the Special Court against the closure report in the MUDA case, involving CM Siddaramaiah as a primary accused. The agency calls for further investigation, highlighting illegalities in land allotment and undue influence in the case.
Key Takeaways
- ED opposes closure report in MUDA case.
- Illegalities in land acquisition and allotment claimed.
- Undue influence allegedly exerted by close associates of CM.
- Evidence of large-scale scam not considered in initial report.
- Legal challenges continue amidst political tensions.
Bengaluru, April 2 (NationPress) In a significant turn of events, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has lodged objections with the Special Court for MPs/MLAs regarding the closure report presented by the Karnataka Lokayukta concerning the prominent Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam, which involves Chief Minister Siddaramaiah as the key accused.
The ED has urged the court to reject the closure report submitted by the investigating body in the predicate offence involving the Karnataka Lokayukta, Mysuru, advocating for necessary directions to further investigate the case in the pursuit of justice.
This development poses a challenge for Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who was scheduled to visit Delhi for discussions with the party leadership following a prolonged period of internal discord within the ruling Congress party.
The objections were filed by the Assistant Director of the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), asserting: "The investigation has uncovered illegal activities in land acquisition, allotment procedures, generation of ill-gotten gains, and the manipulation of these funds, along with improper influence in the allotment process."
"The evidence gathered during the inquiry under the PMLA, 2002, was communicated to the Lokayukta police in Mysuru via a letter. Currently, the Lokayukta's report has been reviewed, revealing that the evidence concerning illegalities in the denotification process, particularly the 3 acres and 16 gunta land at Survey number 464 of Kesare village shared by our directorate with the Lokayukta police, has not been addressed in the report," stated the ED.
The ED also pointed out that despite the land being acquired by Mallikarjunaswamy (accused 3 and Siddaramaiah's brother-in-law) in 2004 and subsequently gifted to B.M. Parvati (the second accused and Siddaramaiah's wife) in 2010, no compensation was sought from MUDA until 2014, a decade later. This fact has been overlooked in the report.
The inquiry under the PMLA uncovered multiple illegalities in the allotment process, including undue influence exerted within MUDA by an individual reportedly close to Siddaramaiah. The agency has shared this evidence with the Lokayukta police, yet it remains unconsidered in the report.
"The evidence collected clearly demonstrates a large-scale fraud in the allotment of sites by MUDA, including transactions involving cash and property received by MUDA officials for facilitating illegal allotments. This information was provided to the Lokayukta police, but no subsequent action has been taken," the ED remarked.
The evidence also indicates that development work on the contested land was executed by L&T Limited prior to its acquisition by Mallikarjunaswamy, as satellite images from 2001 to 2003 reveal completed development activities, including road construction, the ED noted.
While J. Devaraju (accused 4) and Mallikarjunaswamy asserted they visited the land before its purchase, they would have had to utilize the roads constructed by MUDA to access it. Thus, their claim of being unaware of the development undertaken by MUDA is untenable, according to the ED.
Despite these findings, they did not object or claim compensation from MUDA during the land acquisition, the ED observed.
On the issue of undue influence, the ED stated: "In spite of the development work, land conversion was executed by the Revenue Department, namely the Tehsildar and DC, at the behest of Mallikarjunaswamy (the brother-in-law of CM Siddaramaiah)."
"However, no reference to the development work on the land appears in these reports, despite contradicting evidence. This suggests undue influence has occurred, which has been overlooked in the report," the ED claimed.
Social activist Snehamayi Krishna lodged a complaint regarding the MUDA scam, alleging illegal allotment of 64 sites to Siddaramaiah's family by MUDA. The Special Court mandated the filing of the PCR on September 25, 2024.
The Lokayukta police in Mysuru registered an FIR naming Siddaramaiah and his family members among the accused. The ED initiated an investigation under the PMLA on October 1, 2024.
The Lokayukta had submitted a closure report against Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvati, brother-in-law Mallikarjunaswamy, and landowner Devaraju.
The Karnataka High Court quashed the summons issued by the ED to Siddaramaiah's wife Parvathi and Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh concerning the case on March 7.
The complainant, Krishna, submitted a complaint to the Central Vigilance Committee (CVC) on March 12, challenging the clean chit given to Siddaramaiah and his family by senior IPS officers in the Karnataka Lokayukta.
Additionally, he filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, contesting the single bench decision that dismissed his appeal for a CBI investigation into the MUDA case.
