Muda Case: Activist Tells Karnataka High Court Trial Court Order Contradicts Closure Report It Accepted
Jayanti Pahwa
1 Sept 2026 4:52 PM IST
Activist Snehamayi Krishna told the Karnataka High Court that the Trial Court, while accepting the Lokayukta Police's B Report (Closure Report) in the alleged MUDA land scam case involving former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his family members, had recorded findings in its order that were contrary to the contents of the report.
Krishna's counsel submitted that the B Report stated that no spot inspection had been conducted and that development activity had taken place on the land. However, according to the counsel, the Trial Court, while accepting the report, recorded in its order that a spot inspection had been conducted and that no development activity had taken place.
“The report that the Judge accepted points out that development activity had already taken place and that the report was drawn without spot inspection, but the Judge says the place was inspected. The Court had accepted the report, but then the order contradicts that,” counsel submitted.
Counsel further argued that several documents and pieces of evidence had not been considered either by the investigating agency or by the Trial Court.
Referring to the Enforcement Directorate's written synopsis, counsel submitted that the ED itself had stated that the closure report concerning Accused Nos. 1 to 4 was not in accordance with law and that the Karnataka Lokayukta investigation had failed to consider evidence shared by the agency on various aspects of the case.
According to counsel, the ED had specifically pointed out that the investigating officer had failed to consider “substantial evidence” concerning alleged illegalities in the denotification process involving 3 acres 16 guntas of land.
Counsel also referred to the ED's contention that the report had failed to consider whether development work on the subject land had been completed by LAT Limited before its purchase by Accused No. 3, Mallikarjun Swamy, brother-in-law of Siddaramaiah.
Referring to satellite images, counsel submitted that the images indicated completion of the formation and that access to the land required use of the very same land. It was further argued that the investigation had failed to examine the alleged exercise of undue influence in the land-conversion process.
Counsel submitted that the ED's synopsis recorded that the land-conversion process had been initiated at the request of Mallikarjun Swamy and alleged that the report had failed to address the alleged undue influence in the process undertaken by the Revenue Department.
The counsel for Krishna further submitted that the ED had sought rejection of the B Report. According to him, none of these objections or the material evidence referred to by the ED had been considered by the Trial Court while accepting the closure report.
“None of these have been considered. These are vital evidence which the court ought to have considered. The failure of the IO to examine these evidences is something, is an inconsistency which the court should have flagged, but it does none of that,” counsel submitted.
Justice M Nagaprasanna issued notice to the respondents and directed that the matter be listed along with the ED's petition on September 2, 2026, at 2:30 pm.
The plea challenges the Trial Court's acceptance of the B Report filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police in connection with the alleged MUDA scam.
The court had earlier issued notice to the respondents in the matter, including the former Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah, his wife BM Parvathy, his brother-in-law Mallikarjun Swamy, landowner Devaraju, ED, and Lokayuktha police.
On January 28, the trial court had accepted a B report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, in the alleged scam.
In the plea before the High Court, the petitioner seeks that the 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.
Case Title: Snehamayi Krishna v. Superintendent of Police CRL.P 4706/2026 and ED v Snehamayi Krishna Crl P 598/2026
