The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has challenged the Karnataka Lokayukta's closure report in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) money laundering case against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, his wife BM Parvathi and others..To this end, the ED has filed two protest petitions before an Additional City Civil and Sessions Court at Bengaluru. The ED has contended that evidence collected during its probe revealed serious illegalities in land acquisition and land allotment. It added that the Lokayukta has not considered several illegalities, including evidence to indicate that undue influence was exerted in the allotment of land by MUDA."The details of evidences gathered which clearly shows the large-scale scam in allotment of sites by MUDA including details of cash, movable/ immovable properties being received by MUDA officers/ officials for making illegal allotments was shared (by the ED with) the Lokayuktha Police. However, no action has been initiated on the same."Therefore, the ED has urged the trial court not to accept the Lokayukta's closure report in the matter, arguing that further investigation is required in this case..The ED has stated that it is entitled to file such a protest petition since it also counts as an "aggrieved" person."The Enforcement Directorate is to be construed as an aggrieved person (entitled to file a protest petition) as they are the prosecutors under the PMLA. Therefore, the Enforcement Directorate is a Victim/ Aggrieved Person in the Predicate Offence and has a right/ locus standi to protest or to be heard before any order is passed on the closure report filed by the investigating agency (Lokayukta) in the predicate offence," the agency submitted..The case, registered on a complaint by activist Snehamayi Krishna, involves allegations of corruption in the grant of land by the MUDA to Siddaramaiah's wife, Parvathi.According to the complaint, Parvathi was ‘gifted’ a land plot measuring a little over three acres by her brother, Mallikarjuna Swamy. The land was initially acquired, then de-notified and bought by Swamy. It was developed by MUDA, even though private individuals owned it. Swamy claimed that he bought the land in 2004 and gifted it to his sister. However, since the land was illegally developed by MUDA, Parvathi sought compensation. She allegedly received highly inflated compensation, including 14 developed alternate plots of land that were much higher in value than the original three acres, under a 50:50 scheme. The land was later surrendered back to the MUDA after controversy arose. However, it was alleged that she was able to get such disproportionate compensation in the first place because she is the Chief Minister's wife. In February this year, the Lokayukta gave a clean chit in the case to Siddaramaiah, Parvathi, Swamy and the landowner from whom Swamy initially bought the land, Devaraju. It proceeded to file a closure report before the trial court, which has now been challenged by the ED. .On March 7, the Karnataka High Court quashed the summons issued by the ED to Parvathi as well as Minister Byrathi Suresh in connection with the MUDA case.Earlier, an ED summons issued to former MUDA commissioner Dr Natesh DB was also quashed by a single judge of the High Court. The ED's appeal challenging the single-judge order is pending before a Division Bench of the High Court.The High Court clarified today that the single-judge order in Dr Natesha's favour would not come in the way of any lawful investigation by the ED against other persons or other accused. The clarification was issued while refusing to stay the single-judge order.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has challenged the Karnataka Lokayukta's closure report in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) money laundering case against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, his wife BM Parvathi and others..To this end, the ED has filed two protest petitions before an Additional City Civil and Sessions Court at Bengaluru. The ED has contended that evidence collected during its probe revealed serious illegalities in land acquisition and land allotment. It added that the Lokayukta has not considered several illegalities, including evidence to indicate that undue influence was exerted in the allotment of land by MUDA."The details of evidences gathered which clearly shows the large-scale scam in allotment of sites by MUDA including details of cash, movable/ immovable properties being received by MUDA officers/ officials for making illegal allotments was shared (by the ED with) the Lokayuktha Police. However, no action has been initiated on the same."Therefore, the ED has urged the trial court not to accept the Lokayukta's closure report in the matter, arguing that further investigation is required in this case..The ED has stated that it is entitled to file such a protest petition since it also counts as an "aggrieved" person."The Enforcement Directorate is to be construed as an aggrieved person (entitled to file a protest petition) as they are the prosecutors under the PMLA. Therefore, the Enforcement Directorate is a Victim/ Aggrieved Person in the Predicate Offence and has a right/ locus standi to protest or to be heard before any order is passed on the closure report filed by the investigating agency (Lokayukta) in the predicate offence," the agency submitted..The case, registered on a complaint by activist Snehamayi Krishna, involves allegations of corruption in the grant of land by the MUDA to Siddaramaiah's wife, Parvathi.According to the complaint, Parvathi was ‘gifted’ a land plot measuring a little over three acres by her brother, Mallikarjuna Swamy. The land was initially acquired, then de-notified and bought by Swamy. It was developed by MUDA, even though private individuals owned it. Swamy claimed that he bought the land in 2004 and gifted it to his sister. However, since the land was illegally developed by MUDA, Parvathi sought compensation. She allegedly received highly inflated compensation, including 14 developed alternate plots of land that were much higher in value than the original three acres, under a 50:50 scheme. The land was later surrendered back to the MUDA after controversy arose. However, it was alleged that she was able to get such disproportionate compensation in the first place because she is the Chief Minister's wife. In February this year, the Lokayukta gave a clean chit in the case to Siddaramaiah, Parvathi, Swamy and the landowner from whom Swamy initially bought the land, Devaraju. It proceeded to file a closure report before the trial court, which has now been challenged by the ED. .On March 7, the Karnataka High Court quashed the summons issued by the ED to Parvathi as well as Minister Byrathi Suresh in connection with the MUDA case.Earlier, an ED summons issued to former MUDA commissioner Dr Natesh DB was also quashed by a single judge of the High Court. The ED's appeal challenging the single-judge order is pending before a Division Bench of the High Court.The High Court clarified today that the single-judge order in Dr Natesha's favour would not come in the way of any lawful investigation by the ED against other persons or other accused. The clarification was issued while refusing to stay the single-judge order.
