Karnataka HC Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Acceptance Of Lokayuktha Police's Closure Report In MUDA Case Against CM Siddaramaiah, Others

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (March 26) issued notice on a plea moved by Snehamayi Krishna challenging acceptance of a 'B Report'/ Closure Report filed by Lokayuktha police before the trial court in the alleged MUDA land scam lodged against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and others. 

The single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav has issued notice to the respondents in the matter, including the Karnataka CM Siddharamaiah, his wife BM Parvathy, his brother-in-law Mallikarjun Swamy, land owner Devaraju, ED and Lokayuktha police.

For context on January 28 the trial court had accepted a B report filed by Superintendent of Police Karnataka Lokayuktha in the alleged scam. 

In the plea before the High Court, the petitioner seeks that investigation in Crime No. 11/2024 be transferred to an independent investigating agency.

The petitioner also seeks a direction to conduct a fresh investigation into the alleged offences.  The said investigating agency should be directed to submit a fresh report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. (now corresponding to Section 193 of BNSS), the plea states. Such investigation be monitored by a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, the plea seeks. 

The reliefs have been sought by the petitioner in light of the observations made by a coordinate bench in its September 2024  order WP No.22356/2024 titled Siddaramaiah AND State of Karnataka & Others where it had upheld the grant of sanction of the State's Governor under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for investigation/prosecution against the Chief Minister in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.

The plea also refers to ED communication dated 30.11.2024 and ED's press release in January 2026.

Background

It was alleged that Siddaramaiah was the CM in 2013 when his wife submitted a representation to MUDA, contending that it had acquired and formed sites in her lands in 2001 and therefore she is entitled to compensatory sites in the ratio of 50:50. It was claimed that the rule that was then existing was 60:40 but soon thereafter, in 2015, the Rule was amended to grant sites at 50:50 ratio. It has been alleged that Siddaramaiah's son participated in the meeting where a resolution to this effect was passed by MUDA.

The purchase of the property in question was on an offset price of Rs 300 in the year 1935. The determined compensation amount in favour of the owner was at Rs 3,56,000 in the year 1997. In 2021, this amount escalated to Rs 56 crores.

The coordinate bench in its September 2024 order had held:

"It is rather difficult to accept that the beneficiary of the entire transaction to which compensation is determined at Rs 3.56 lakhs to become Rs 56/- crores is not the family of the petitioner...How and why the Rule was bent in favour of the family of the Chief Minister is what is required to be investigated into. If this does not require investigation, I fail to understand what other case can merit investigation, as the beneficiary is the family of the petitioner and the benefit is by leaps and bounds, it is in fact a windfall. If the beneficiary were to be a stranger, this Court would have shown the complainants their door of exit, while it is not."

Meanwhile the High Court had on February 7, 2025 had refused to transfer the investigation by the Lokayukta police into the alleged "scam" which is stated to involve Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his family to the tune of approximately 56 crores, to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Case Title: Snehamayi Krishna v. Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha

Case No: CRL.P 4706/2026