Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Monday adjourned the hearing of the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case, which allegedly involves Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, till September 9.
The court also continued its interim order, providing relief to the Chief Minister until then.
The bench passed the order after Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty requested more time to present his important arguments. Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing CM Siddaramaiah, also requested the court to allow him to present his arguments on September 12, to which the bench agreed.
Earlier, in an attempt to establish the alleged involvement of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in irregularities related to the MUDA case, senior counsel K.G. Raghavan, appearing for petitioner Snehamayi Krishna, submitted to the Karnataka High Court that these irregularities occurred during Siddaramaiah’s tenure as Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of the state.
Raghavan pointed out that the bench, headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, had asked the counsels to establish the link between CM Siddaramaiah and the case, and he would argue in that direction. “The rules were bent at will throughout to facilitate the allotment of sites to the CM’s wife. How can the de-notification rules of 2015 be applied to land acquired in 1998?” he questioned.
He further argued, “A person who is not the owner submitted an application for the de-notification of the land. CM Siddaramaiah’s family is not eligible to receive even a single site in this case. Land of minimal value was compensated with sites of the highest value. When all this was taking place, Siddaramaiah was in the position of CM or Deputy CM.”
Raghavan referred to Section 7C of the Prevention of Corruption Act, stating that it clearly defines it as a crime to avail oneself of unnecessary benefits. The act is intended to bring sanctity to public administration. “Even if something is not illegal, any attempt to influence makes it a crime. The government formed a commission to look into the matter, considering that an investigation was necessary. In this context, the order of the Governor is appropriate,” he stated.
He also submitted that a landowner named Devaraju, who transferred his ownership rights to his brother Mylarappa, applied for de-notification and then sold the land to CM’s brother-in-law, Mallikarjun Swamy and hence the matter needs to be probed.
The bench asked counsel Raghavan whether this was the only piece of land denotified. The counsel submitted that, according to their information, this was the only de-notification that took place at that time. “In the case of a common man, alternative sites would not have been provided, and they would have been asked to prove ownership,” he emphasised.
“One mistake is understandable; however, repeated mistakes indicate malice. How many more points are needed for an investigation?” he questioned.
(IANS)
