The Enforcement Directorate has uncovered widespread allegations of corruption involving Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, centering on the illegal allocation of land plots to his wife, B.M. Parvati. The case raises serious questions about the integrity of the Karnataka state administration and siddaramaiah’s own ethical standards. As per the ED’s statement, the former Commissioner of the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA), D.B. Nagesh, is implicated in orchestrating the illegal allocation of plots to Siddaramaiah’s wife.
The findings are shocking,as the ED claims that compensation offered in the form of replacement sites was valued at a staggering 1,700 times the market price of the land that was seized from B.M. Parvati. While the seized land was valued at a mere Rs 3.24 lakh, the ED alleges that Siddaramaiah’s wife received 14 plots valued at a staggering Rs 56 crore in Mysore’s affluent Vijayanagara Layout.
This troubling scenario has unfolded following a formal complaint lodged against Siddaramaiah and several associates, prompting the Mysore Lokayukta police to register a First Information Report (FIR) under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. The ED is actively investigating the case based on this FIR, further broadening the scope of allegations against the Chief Minister.
The ED asserts that Siddaramaiah abused his political influence to facilitate the allocation of these 14 plots in the name of his wife, positioning them as compensation for the 3 acres and 16 guntas of land acquired by MUDA. The dramatic discrepancy between the value of the land acquired and the compensation received raises serious red flags about potential corruption and favoritism within the MUDA.
In addition to the 14 plots allocated to B.M. Parvati, the ED’s investigation has revealed further irregularities during search operations conducted as part of their inquiries. It appears that numerous additional plots were unlawfully distributed to real estate developers, often sold at inflated prices, thus generating substantial illegal profits. The ED claims that these profits were subsequently laundered and presented as legitimate income, complicating the trail of illicit activities.
Comments