The ED has urged the court to reject the closure report filed by the investigating agency in the predicate offence / Karnataka Lokayukta, Mysuru, and has asked for further investigation into the case in the interest of justice.
This development has emerged as a setback for Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who was scheduled to travel to Delhi for a meeting with the party high command after a prolonged gap amidst escalating internal conflicts within the ruling Congress party.
In its objections, filed through assistant director of ED’s Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the ED stated: "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 ED further explained that evidence collected during the PMLA investigation had been shared with the Lokayukta police, Mysuru, through a letter. However, the ED contended that the Lokayukta’s closure report had not considered vital evidence concerning the illegalities in the denotification process of the 3-acre 16-gunta land at Survey number 464 of Kesare village, which had been shared by the ED with the Lokayukta.
The agency also pointed out that although the land was purchased by Mallikarjunaswamy (accused 3, Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law) in 2004 and later gifted to B M Parvathi (second accused, Siddaramaiah’s wife) in 2010, no compensation had been claimed from MUDA for a decade until 2014. The ED argued that this significant detail was overlooked in the closure report.
The investigation under the PMLA had uncovered numerous irregularities in the allotment process, including undue influence exerted by an individual with close ties to Siddaramaiah. The ED claimed it had shared evidence of these illegal activities with the Lokayukta police but stated that no action had been taken to investigate further.
Moreover, the ED highlighted that satellite images from 2001, 2002, and 2003 showed that L&T Limited had undertaken development work, including the laying of roads, on the land prior to its purchase by Mallikarjunaswamy.
The ED argued that Mallikarjunaswamy and his co-accused, J Devaraju (accused 4), could not have accessed the land without using the roads built by MUDA. The ED disputed their claims of being unaware of the development work.
Despite this, the ED noted that neither Mallikarjunaswamy nor Devaraju had raised objections or sought compensation from MUDA at the time of the land purchase.
Regarding undue influence, the ED alleged: "Despite the development work, the land conversion has been undertaken by the Revenue Department, i.e., Tahsildar and DC. This has been undertaken at the request and participation of Mallikarjunaswamy (CM Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law)."
The ED argued that the closure report did not address the development work on the land, despite the evidence to the contrary, suggesting undue influence. The agency claimed that this aspect was not considered in the closure report.
The MUDA scam, involving alleged illegal allotment of 64 sites to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s family members by MUDA, came to light after social activist Snehamayi Krishna filed a complaint. Following this, the Special Court had ordered the filing of the PCR on September 25, 2024.
The Lokayukta police in Mysuru had filed an FIR naming Siddaramaiah, his family members, and others as accused. The ED registered a case on October 1, 2024, and commenced an investigation under PMLA.
The Lokayukta subsequently filed a closure report against CM Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvati, brother-in-law Mallikarjunaswamy, and landowner Devaraju.
On March 7, 2025, the Karnataka High Court quashed the summons issued by the ED to CM Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvathi and Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh in connection with the case.
In a related development, Krishna filed a complaint with the Central Vigilance Committee (CVC) on March 12 against senior IPS officers serving in the Karnataka Lokayukta, questioning the clean chit given to the CM and his family members. He also filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, challenging the single bench order that quashed his appeal for a CBI investigation into the MUDA case.
This case continues to develop, and the ED’s objections will now be heard by the Special Court.