Siddaramaiah was behind the smoke screen for all benefits flown to his wife from MUDA: Karnataka High Court

How and why the rules were bent in favour of the family of Siddaramaiah is what is required to be investigated, the court observed

Observing that Chief Minister Siddaramaiah is “undoubtedly, behind the smoke screen for every benefit that has flown to his wife” in the form of 14 sites allotted to her in a posh locality in Mysuru, the High Court of Karnataka has said that how and why the rules were bent in favour of the family is what is required to be investigated.

“If this does not require investigation, I fail to understand what other case can merit investigation, as the beneficiary is the family of the petitioner [Mr. Siddaramaiah] and the benefit is by leaps and bounds, it is in fact a windfall,” Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed in his judgment on Tuesday.

In quick succession

All the allegations would require investigation in the least, for the reason that “if Mr. Siddaramaiah was not in the seat of power, helm of affairs, the benefit with such magnitude would not have flown,” the court said while pointing out that “it is unheard of for a common man to get these benefits in such quick succession bending the rule from time to time”.

“If this were to be a case of a common man, he would not have fought shy of facing the investigation. In the opinion of the court, the Chief Minister, a leader of the proletariat, the bourgeois and of any citizen, should not fight shy of any investigation. ”Justice M. Nagaprasanna,judge of the High Court of Karnataka

The court pointed out that “Mr. Sidddaramaiah may not have put his signature, made a recommendation or taken a decision, for bringing him into the offence against him under the Act, but the beneficiary is not a stranger. The beneficiary of these acts is the wife of the petitioner. It is the open proclamation which is in the public domain by Mr. Siddaramaiah himself that if MUDA gives him ₹62 crore, he would give back the property”.

Therefore, the court said that “merely because the wife of the petitioner [Mr. Siddaramaiah] has indulged in all these acts, legal or illegal, the petitioner cannot be said to be completely ignorant of what is happening in the life of his wife, qua these factors. It, prima facie, depicts stretching of the arms of undue influence and portrays abuse of power of the seat of the Chief Minister or any other post held by Mr. Siddaramaiah”.

Stating that the denotification of three acres and 16 guntas of land acquired by the MUDA way back in 1992-1997 itself was illegal on the face of it, the court pointed out that rules for allotment of alternative sites were amended to benefit Parvathi, Mr. Siddaramaiah’s wife. But for amendment of rule, she was only entitled to two sites measuring 40x60 ft which would amount to 4,800 sq. ft for relinquishing more than three acres of land in terms of MUDA’s 1991 incentive scheme, which was in fact, quoted in the sale deeds of 14 sites registered in her favour.

“It shocks the conscience of the court as to how much is given to the petitioner as against 4,800 sq. ft, it is 38,284 sq. ft. Two sites become 14 sites. The wife of the petitioner is now the proud owner of 14 sites worth ₹56 crore,” the court observed.

What is further surprising is, the court said, the moment benefit was flown to the hands of Mr. Siddaramaiah’s wife, the proceedings began to withdraw the amended rule of 50:50 ratio for allotting developed land in liue of acquired land.

“If events or the link in the chain of events are noted, there are a few dots to be connected. It is that connection of dots that would require an inquiry or an investigation in the least. I say so for the reason that immediately after 14 sale deeds were registered in favour of the wife of the petitioner, the Urban Development Department issued directions to the Commissioner, MUDA, to stop allocation of compensatory sites till guidelines are formulated.

In fact, the court noted that on Mr. Siddaramaiah becoming Chief Minister in 2023, the MUDA’s resolution for adopting the 50:50 ratio was withdrawn in October 2023. When the resolution based on which sites were allotted to Mr. Siddaramaiah’s wife itself was withdrawn as to be contrary to the law, what happens to the 14 sites that were granted on the basis of an illegal resolution, is a matter that requires investigation, the court said.

Published - September 24, 2024 09:26 pm IST