Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi

New Delhi, Feb 25: The Lokayukta’s investigation into the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam, which involves Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, his wife, and other individuals, has raised serious concerns regarding the integrity and scope of the probe.

A report from the Lokayukta, obtained by IANS, reveals that Siddaramaiah was asked only 30 questions during the investigation, which was abruptly closed following the filing of a “B report”. This rapid conclusion has prompted questions about the thoroughness of the inquiry, especially as key findings from the Enforcement Directorate (ED)—which had identified the involvement of prominent figures—were overlooked by the Lokayukta.

The limited questioning and swift closure of the case have raised doubts about the transparency and depth of the investigation.

On November 6, 2024, Siddaramaiah appeared for questioning in connection with the MUDA scam. According to the report, the questioning began with basic personal details, including Siddaramaiah’s name, occupation, and his knowledge of the case. Siddaramaiah confirmed that he was aware of the charges against him, with his wife, B.M. Parvathi, named as the second accused, along with his relative Mallikarjunaswamy and another individual, Devaraju. Siddaramaiah denied any personal wrongdoing.

The investigation shifted to Siddaramaiah’s family, specifically his brother-in-law, Mallikarjunaswamy, who was involved in a land deal at the centre of the scam. Siddaramaiah stated that he had no prior knowledge of the land purchase in Kesare village until mid-2013, when his wife informed him. He denied providing any financial assistance to his brother-in-law or being involved in the land’s transfer, even though Mallikarjunaswamy had purchased the land in 2013.

Further questioning focused on Siddaramaiah’s possible involvement in land denotification processes. He denied knowing Devaraju or assisting in the denotification of land, despite Devaraju’s application for land release in 1998.

Siddaramaiah was also asked about a land donation from Mallikarjunaswamy to his wife in 2013. He claimed that he was unaware of the donation until his wife informed him and denied any involvement in the development of the land by MUDA in 2014 when he was Chief Minister. He maintained that he had not intervened in the matter, as it was not appropriate for him to do so.

The investigators continued by asking about land compensation granted to his wife by MUDA. Siddaramaiah denied any knowledge of his wife’s application for compensation or the allocation of 14 plots in 2020. He stressed that, at the time, he held no position of authority that would have allowed him to influence these decisions.

When questioned about whether he had disclosed the 14 plots in his election affidavits, Siddaramaiah admitted he could not recall mentioning them in his 2018 or 2023 filings. However, he acknowledged that he had listed the plots in a 2014 affidavit submitted to the Karnataka Lokayukta.

Siddaramaiah was also questioned about amendments made in 2015 to the Karnataka Urban Development Rules, which affected compensation ratios for landowners. He claimed that he was unaware of these changes and denied any role in recommending or influencing them.

The investigation continued with questions about the use of a government guest house for the registration of the 14 plots. Siddaramaiah confirmed that he had no knowledge of this or recommended its use. When asked whether he had advised his wife to return the plots to MUDA, Siddaramaiah stated that she had done so voluntarily, citing concerns over his reputation. He also denied any knowledge of the use of a whitener in the MUDA application.

Finally, Siddaramaiah was questioned about his financial assets. He provided his PAN card number but could not recall any specific details regarding his bank accounts at that time.

Throughout the investigation, Siddaramaiah consistently denied any involvement or knowledge of his wife’s or his relatives’ actions in the land dealings. His responses, however, have raised further questions about his potential role and awareness, particularly given his high-ranking position during the period in question.

As the investigation continues, Siddaramaiah’s testimony remains a key element in the MUDA scam case, with many unanswered questions surrounding his and his family’s involvement in the scandal.