The Karnataka high court on Thursday issued notices to chief minister Siddaramaiah, Lokayukta police, and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) over a petition challenging the closure of the corruption case against him, his wife BM Parvathi and two others in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land allotment case.. Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah. (X). Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav issued the notices on the petition filed by activist and the complainant in the MUDA case, Snehamayi Krishna. Krishna challenged the January 28 order of a special court in Bengaluru accepting the Lokayukta police’s closure report in the case.. The case pertained to alleged irregularities in land allotments by MUDA. Krishna’s complaint alleged that Siddaramaiah misused his official position to secure undue benefits for his wife.. As per the complaint, Parvathy’s brother gifted her a plot of land that was illegally developed by MUDA. When she complained and sought compensation, she was given highly inflated compensation by the state, including 14 developed alternate plots of land much higher in value than the original three acres.. On July 26 last year, the Karnataka governor granted sanction to prosecute Siddaramiah in the case. Siddaramaiah challenged the sanction. On September 24, 2024, Justice M Nagaprasanna of the high court rejected Siddaramaiah’s plea.. The Lokayukta police registered a case against Siddaramaiah, Parvathi, his brother-in-law Mallikarjuna Swamy and landowner J Devaraj. It also named former MUDA Commissioners GT Dinesh Kumar and DB Natesh, and realtor Manjunath as accused in the case.. The Lokayukta police filed a report saying that it had not found sufficient evidence to establish a case of corruption against Siddaramiah, his wife, Swamy, and Devaraj. The special court accepted this report on January 28 and observed that the evidence collected during the investigation was insufficient to sustain allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, or allied provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It allowed the investigation to continue against other accused.. Krishna’s plea argues that the special court treated the case as a “routine dispute” and failed to recognise the seriousness of allegations involving abuse of constitutional office. He contended that the court mechanically relied on the Lokayukta’s conclusions instead of conducting an independent assessment.. The petition pointed to what it calls an “internal inconsistency” in the special court’s order. It argues that the court accepted the closure report for some accused while simultaneously acknowledging irregularities and directing further investigation against others.. Krishna urged the high court to transfer the probe in the MUDA case to an independent agency and to order a fresh investigation. He sought a retired high court judge’s monitoring of the probe.. The plea cited Justice Nagaprasanna’s September 2024 order that had upheld the governor’s sanction
