Bengaluru : Court Accepts Lokayukta Report in MUDA Case Involving Karnataka CM

Bengaluru: A special court in Bengaluru has accepted a closure report filed by the Lokayukta police in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case, offering significant relief to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his wife, B.M. Parvathi. The decision brings temporary closure to a matter that has remained under public and political scrutiny for several years.

The Special Court for People’s Representatives formally accepted the report on January 28, concluding that the available material does not support further investigation against the chief minister and three other individuals named in the complaint.

Court Accepts Lokayukta’s Closure Report

The Lokayukta police had submitted what is known as a ‘B’ report, indicating that their investigation did not uncover sufficient evidence to proceed with criminal charges. By accepting this report, the court effectively agreed with the investigating agency’s conclusion that the allegations lacked prosecutable substance at this stage.

Officials familiar with the proceedings stated that the report assessed land acquisition records, compensation details, and procedural aspects related to the disputed allotments before reaching its findings.

Background of the MUDA Allegations

The case stems from claims that MUDA allotted 14 residential plots to Parvathi in 2021 in the Vijayanagara area of Mysuru. These plots were allegedly provided as compensation after MUDA acquired 3.16 acres of land owned by her in Kesare village.

According to the complaint, the original land acquisition compensation was valued at approximately Rs 3.24 lakh. The allotment of 14 plots in a high-value locality, however, was estimated by critics to be worth around Rs 56 crore, leading to allegations of disproportionate benefit.

Allegations of Influence and Parallel Probes

The complainant alleged that political influence was used to secure prime land as compensation instead of a standard monetary payout. These claims prompted not only the Lokayukta probe but also drew the attention of the Enforcement Directorate, which has been examining the land acquisition and compensation process from a financial and procedural standpoint.

Authorities have clarified that acceptance of the Lokayukta’s report does not automatically halt other agencies from continuing inquiries under separate legal frameworks, should they deem it necessary.

Governor’s Sanction and High Court Observations

In August 2024, the Karnataka Governor granted approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, allowing an investigation into the allegations involving the chief minister. This move added legal weight to the complaint and paved the way for further scrutiny.

Subsequently, in September 2024, the Karnataka High Court upheld the Governor’s decision. The court observed that the issues raised warranted examination and declined to interfere at that preliminary stage, allowing investigative agencies to proceed according to law.

Judicial Commission’s Findings

Earlier this year, Karnataka Minister H.K. Patil stated that a judicial commission headed by retired judge P.N. Desai had independently reviewed the MUDA-related allegations. According to the minister, the commission found no evidence of wrongdoing by Siddaramaiah or his family members.

Patil told reporters that the commission’s conclusions aligned with the Lokayukta’s assessment and cleared the chief minister and his family of any impropriety in the matter.

Political and Legal Implications Ahead

While the court’s acceptance of the closure report marks a major legal relief for the chief minister, the case continues to carry political significance. Opposition parties have maintained that the issue reflects broader concerns about transparency in urban development authorities.

Legal experts note that future developments will depend on the status of parallel inquiries and whether any new material emerges. For now, the court’s order reinforces the Lokayukta’s position that the evidence on record does not justify further action in this case