Today, On 8th August, A private complaint filed against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in a Bengaluru court concerning the MUDA scam case. The complaint alleges involvement in irregularities related to the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
Bangalore: A private complaint filed against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the Special Court for People’s Representatives in Bengaluru.
The complaint, initiated by Snehamai Krishna from Mysore, was submitted through her advocate, Lakshmi Iyengar. After a meticulous examination of the complaint’s contents, the Special Court accepted the filing.
The court adjourned the proceedings, scheduling the next hearing for tomorrow. Snehamai Krishna’s complaint alleges the Chief Minister’s involvement in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam, a case that has garnered significant public interest and attention.
Read Also: CM Siddaramaiah Denies Voter Luring Allegations: Karnataka HC
This allegation suggests possible misconduct in the MUDA, raising questions about the Chief Minister‘s role and prompting a legal review to determine the validity of these claims.
The upcoming court sessions expected to shed more light on the matter, as the public closely watches the developments in this high-profile case.
Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah faces allegations of using his influence to unlawfully denotify land within the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) jurisdiction. As a result, a case has been filed against him. The accusations claim that Siddaramaiah wrote a letter in 1979 to denotify land acquired for building Ashraya houses in Uttanahalli, Varuna, Mysore taluk, 30 years later.
He is alleged to have recommended the denotification of 1.39 acres of land in favour of an individual named Marappa.
Read Also: BJP Defamation Case|| Bengaluru Court Re-issues Summons CM Siddaramaiah, DK Shivakumar
The complaint asserts that, despite Marappa having no connection to the land, it was de-notified in his name based on falsified documents. Following Siddaramaiah’s recommendation, the district administration is accused of creating fake documents 14 months later, de-notifying the 1.39 acres in Marappa’s name, even though he was not the original owner.
Additionally, the complainant mentions that the actual landowners, who were not Marappa, wrote to the district commissioners in 2011, requesting the return of their land. This request included in the complaint.
As the proceedings unfold, the public and media closely monitoring the developments, given the high-profile nature of the case and the prominent position of the accused. The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching consequences for urban development policies and political accountability in the region.