Union Minister for Heavy Industries and Steel and Janata Dal (Secular) leader H.D. Kumaraswamy has alleged that the land acquired by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) from Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvathi had earlier been denotified in the name of a deceased person.
Addressing a press conference on Saturday, Mr. Kumaraswamy claimed he possessed documents to show “glaring loopholes” in the revenue records of the 3.16 acres of land in survey number 464 at Kesare in Mysuru gifted to Ms. Parvathi by her brother D.M. Mallikarjunaswamy.
Preliminary notification
Mr. Kumaraswamy said preliminary notification for acquiring the land, originally in the name of one Ninga, was issued in 1992 for developing the layout. The final notification was issued in 1997 and even the compensation amounting to ₹3.27 lakh had been deposited. But, the government denotified the piece of land in the name of Ninga in 1998, when Mr. Siddaramaiah was the Deputy Chief Minister.
However, records show a pouthi khatha (issued to legal heirs after the death of owner) being issued in the name of one Devaraju in 1992 for the same land, Mr Kumaraswamy said, while questioning legality of denotification. “Was the person alive when the application for denotification was submitted?” he questioned.
Subsequently, Mr. Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law purchased the land from the same Devaraju in 2004. In 2005, when Mr. Siddaramaiah was the Deputy Chief Minister in the Congress-JD(S) coalition government, headed by N. Dharam Singh, his brother-in-law submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner of Mysuru for conversion of land from agricultural to residential purposes, Mr. Kumaraswamy claimed.
“Did the officials conduct a survey? Was it still agricultural land then?” Mr. Kumaraswamy questioned.
After the Deputy Commissioner of Mysuru converted the land in 2005, Mr. Mallikarjunaswamy gifted it to his sister in 2010, he said.
However, Mr. Kumaraswamy said Mr. Siddaramaiah failed to disclose his wife’s possession of the piece of land when he filed his affidavit to contest the Legislative Assembly elections in 2013.
Who is owner
Referring to Ms. Parvathi’s application in 2014 for compensation for the land on which the MUDA developed a layout, Mr. Kumaraswamy said the MUDA was “technically” the owner of the land as the compensation for acquiring the land was transferred to the original owner in 1997.
“So, she was eligible only for two incentive sites, which is applicable for owners losing between three and four acres to the MUDA and not the 14 sites that had been allotted to her,” Mr. Kumaraswamy claimed.
