MUDA case: Court to pronounce verdict on objections to closure report against Siddaramaiah on April 15

IANS April 9, 2025 250 views

The Special Court for MLAs and MPs has reserved its judgment on the Enforcement Directorate's objections to the Lokayukta's closure report in the MUDA land case involving Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. The ED is challenging the closure report, alleging irregularities in land acquisition and allotment involving Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvati, and brother-in-law Mallikarjunaswamy. The court is set to pronounce its verdict on April 15, with the ED arguing that the Supreme Court mandates strict action in money laundering cases. The case centers around the alleged illegal allotment of 14 sites under a controversial land exchange scheme.

"The Supreme Court has stated that those involved in money laundering should not be let off easily." - Madhukar Deshpande, ED Counsel
Bengaluru, April 9: The Special Court for MLAs and MPs has reserved its order on the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) objection to the closure report in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case involving Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and others.

Key Points

1

ED challenges Lokayukta's closure report in MUDA land case

2

Court to pronounce verdict on objections on April 15

3

Siddaramaiah and family named in alleged land scam

4

ED claims illegalities in land acquisition and allotment

Following the conclusion of arguments and counterarguments, Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat on Wednesday reserved the matter for judgment on April 15.

The ED has challenged the Karnataka Lokayukta’s closure report by filing a petition in the Special Court.

The ED in its petition had urged the court not to accept the closure report filed by the investigating agency, Karnataka Lokayukta, Mysuru, in the interest of justice and issue necessary directions as deemed fit for investigation in the case.

The ED, while presenting its arguments in connection with the MUDA scam at the Special Court for MLAs and MPs in Bengaluru, had appealed that the accused involved in money laundering should not be let off easily.

Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has been named as the prime accused in the MUDA case. His wife, Parvati, is the second accused, and his brother-in-law, Mallikarjunaswamy, is the third.

The Karnataka Lokayukta had earlier submitted a closure report citing a lack of evidence against them.

Senior counsel Madhukar Deshpande, appearing for the ED, said: “The Karnataka Lokayukta has submitted a ‘B Report’ against the four accused in the MUDA scam. Therefore, the ED has the right to question this closure report. The Supreme Court has stated that those involved in money laundering should not be let off easily.”

The counsel said that the ED had shared all the details of its investigation into the MUDA case with the Lokayukta police, but those findings were not taken into consideration, adding that the report shared by the ED will also be submitted to the court.

The counsel submitted that the ED, as an independent investigative agency, has the authority to question the findings of the Lokayukta. Even if the investigative team files a ‘B Report’ in the original case, the Supreme Court has, in certain cases, held that the ED can still challenge it.

The MUDA case is related to the alleged illegal allotment of 14 sites to the Chief Minister’s wife under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.16 acres of land gifted to her by her brother, the third accused. It is alleged that the Chief Minister’s wife had no legal title to this 3.16 acres of land.

The Special Court directed the filing of the PCR on September 25, 2024. The Lokayukta police in Mysuru had filed an FIR naming Siddaramaiah and his family members and others. The ED had registered a case on October 1, 2024, and an 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 J. Devaraju.

The Karnataka High Court on March 7 quashed the summons issued by the ED to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's wife, B.M. Parvathi and state Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh in connection with the MUDA case.

The petitioner Snehamayi Krishna has filed a complaint with the Commissioner of 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.

The petitioner had also filed a writ petition before the division bench of the Karnataka High Court, questioning the single bench order quashing his appeal for the CBI investigation into the MUDA case.

The ED filed an objection to this closure report on April 2, and petitioner Snehamayi Krishna also submitted a plea to the court questioning the Lokayukta’s investigation.

The investigating agency, in its objections, said: “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 evidence/information collected during the investigation under the PMLA, 2002, was shared with the Lokayukta police, Mysuru, through a letter. Presently, the Lokayukta has filed a report in this respect. The perusal of the report reveals that the evidence 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 has not been considered in the report,” the ED said.

Reader Comments

R
Rahul K.
Interesting development! The ED seems serious about pursuing this case despite the Lokayukta's closure report. Let's see what the court decides on April 15. Justice should be served without any political bias. 🤔
P
Priya M.
The whole 50:50 ratio scheme sounds fishy. If there was no proper title to the land, how could sites be allotted? Hope the court examines all evidence properly. Too many high-profile cases get swept under the rug in our country.
S
Sanjay T.
Respectfully, I think the media is jumping the gun here. The Lokayukta found no evidence, and now ED is challenging it. Let's not convict anyone in the court of public opinion before the actual court gives its verdict.
A
Ananya R.
This case shows why we need stronger anti-corruption laws. Whether it's this government or the previous one, politicians always seem to find loopholes. 😤 When will common people get justice?
V
Vikram J.
The timeline is confusing - some dates mention 2024 but we're in 2023? Maybe a typo in the article. Otherwise, good reporting on a complex legal matter.
N
Neha P.
It's concerning when different investigative agencies reach opposite conclusions. Shows the system needs more transparency. Hope the truth comes out, whatever it may be! 🙏

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Your email won't be published

Tags:
You May Like!