Karnataka High Court Dismisses Siddaramaiah’s Petition: A Closer Look at the Site Allotment Controversy

Chief Minister Siddaramaiah faced a significant setback when the Karnataka High Court dismissed his petition challenging the Governor’s approval for an investigation into a controversial site allotment case. This investigation centers on allegations that MUDA (Mysuru Urban Development Authority) improperly allotted 14 sites to Siddaramaiah’s wife in a prime area of Mysuru.

Background of the Case

The court conducted six hearings starting on August 19 before a single judge bench led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna. After reserving the verdict on September 12, the court extended an interim order that instructed the special court for people’s representatives to pause its proceedings until the High Court reached a decision.

Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted the need for an investigation, stating, “The facts presented in the petition clearly warrant an investigation, particularly given that the beneficiary of these actions is not an outsider, but the petitioner’s family.” He also announced that any existing interim orders would be dissolved.

The Governor’s Sanction

On August 16, Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot granted sanction for the investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This decision stemmed from complaints submitted by Pradeep Kumar S.P., T.J. Abraham, and Snehamayi Krishna, which detailed the alleged offenses.

Siddaramaiah’s Legal Challenge

In response to the Governor’s order, Siddaramaiah filed his petition on August 19. He argued that the sanction lacked proper consideration and violated statutory and constitutional requirements. According to him, the decision was procedurally flawed and motivated by extraneous factors, including the binding advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 163 of the Constitution of India.

Notable lawyers Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Prof. Ravivarma Kumar represented Siddaramaiah, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Governor’s office. Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty also presented his arguments.

Allegations of Irregularities

The allegations in the MUDA site allotment case are serious. Critics claim that MUDA allocated compensatory sites to Siddaramaiah’s wife, B.M. Parvathi, in a high-value Mysuru area. This location was reportedly worth much more than the land that MUDA acquired.

Parvathi received plots under a 50:50 ratio scheme in exchange for 3.16 acres of her land. However, questions arise about her legal title to that land, which is at survey number 464 in Kasare village, Kasaba hobli of Mysuru taluk. Critics allege she did not hold a legitimate title, raising further concerns about the allotment’s validity.

Conclusion

As the investigation progresses, the implications for Siddaramaiah and his administration could be significant. The court’s ruling underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in public office, particularly regarding land allotments. With legal battles ahead, Karnataka’s political landscape may shift depending on the investigation’s findings.