ED probe against Sidda's wife: Irregularities found

Evidence of several irregularities have been detected in the transfer of 14 sites by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to B M Parvathi, the wife of Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, according to the Enforcement Directorate.

The federal agency, in a recent communication sent to the Karnataka Lokayukta department, also claimed that its probe has also found that MUDA had 'illegally' allotted a total of 1,095 sites in benami and other such transactions.

There was 'contravention of statutory guidelines' in the land transfer to Parvathi and evidence of 'tampering', violation of office procedures, usage of 'undue' favour and influence and 'forging' of signatures have been detected during the Enforcement Directorate's money laundering investigation into the politically sensitive case.

The agency has also claimed to have found evidence that one of Siddaramaiah's personal assistants, S G Dinesh Kumar alias C T Kumar, wielded 'undue influence' in the process.

The alleged illegal activities at MUDA 'did not end' with the case of Parvathi as a total of 1,095 sites, with a market value of more than Rs 700 crore, were 'illegally' allotted, according to an investigation report accessed by PTI and information from official sources.

"Most of the allotments have been made in the name of Benami or dummy persons in the guise of land losers. However, the beneficiaries of these illegal allotments are real estate businessmen and influential persons," the ED probe found.

The ED is conducting a money laundering investigation against Siddaramaiah, Parvathi, the CM's brother-in-law Mallikarjuna Swamy, Devaraju -- from whom Mallikarjuna Swamy purchased the land under probe and gifted it to Parvathi -- and some others after taking cognisance of a Karnataka Lokayukta Police FIR filed against them.

The CM, who has been questioned by the Lokayukta in this case, has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing by him or his family, saying these were politically motivated charges against him as the opposition was 'scared' of him.

It is alleged that 14 compensatory sites were allotted to Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru (Vijayanagar Layout third and fourth stages), which had higher property value as compared to the location of her land which had been 'acquired' by MUDA.

The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.16 acres of her land, where it developed a residential layout.

The ED has informed the Lokayukta in the recent communication sent under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) that it can be evidently observed that the 14 sites were allotted "illegally" to Parvathi in "contravention" of statutory guidelines on allotment of sites.

It said that evidence related to tampering, violation of office procedures, exerting undue favour and influence, forging of signature, evidence tampering etc. is also evident from the investigation, the agency said.

The ED said when this allotment was made to Parvathi, her son Yathindra was the MLA of the Varuna constituency and hence a member of the MUDA board.

Siddaramaiah was stated to be the Leader of Opposition during this period.

The de-notification process of the said land was not based on 'any reasoning or deliberation or analysis of records', it said.

Probe found, the ED has claimed, that the CM's PA SG Dinesh Kumar alias C T Kumar wielded 'undue' influence in the office of MUDA.

He had also 'forged' signatures and 'influenced' the process of allotment of sites to Parvathi, the ED found.

The said land sites were 'illegally' de-notified based on 'incorrect' facts and 'under influence' and subsequently the land was purchased by Mallikarjuna Swamy as agricultural land 'despite the fact' that some construction had already been undertaken by MUDA and sites were allotted before the land was sold by Devaraju to Swamy, the ED said.

The agency said that the 'contravention' of laid down statutory provisions for allotment of sites as compensation was not a one off incident (Parvathi's case) and that there was a 'deep rooted nexus' between real estate businessmen, influential persons and MUDA officers and officials to perpetrate this alleged land crime.

It was also found, during the searches conducted in this case, that a 'large number' of (1,946 out of 5,000) high-security bond papers used by MUDA to issue allotment letters are 'missing'.

The agency alleged that a man named Prashant Raju, personal assistant to former MUDA Commissioner GT Dinesh Kumar, withdrew these bond papers despite having no role in the issue of allotment letters.

'Investigations indicate these high-security bond papers may have been used to issue fraudulent allotment letters by GT Dinesh Kumar,' the ED alleged.

The agency told the Lokayukta that the entire proceedings undertaken for conversion of the land-- 3.16 acres of land at survey number 464 of Kasare village, Kasaba Hobli of Mysuru taluk-- for non-agricultural purpose was a 'sham' and not based on facts on the ground.

It said that the revenue administration of the local area like Village Accountant, Surveyor, Revenue Inspector, Tashildhar and Deputy Commissioner visited the land in question to undertake a spot inspection but they failed to mention that construction work was undertaken by MUDA at the spot.

They reported that no unauthorised construction was in place which is totally contrary to the facts on the ground as seen from the 'satellite images' and records of MUDA, the ED said.

"It is also to be noted that Siddaramaiah was the Deputy Chief Minister of the state during the course when the proceedings for conversion of the land was undertaken," the ED said.

The ED said it smelled 'tampering of evidence' as it was found that a compensation letter submitted to MUDA by Parvathi on June 14, 2014, had a whitener lining to erase a sentence with no authentication of the alteration.

It was found that the processing of Parvathi's file was done by 'violating' normal procedure and the then MUDA Commissioner himself selected the sites to be allotted.

'The proposal for site allocation was not put up by the site allotment section, it was undertaken directly by the then Commissioner of MUDA D B Natesh on his own accord. This indicates undue favour,' the ED claimed.

The entire process of de-notification, purchase of the land and its subsequent conversion for non-agricultural purposes was all along devised under the influence to obtain possession of prime land at a layout being developed by MUDA which was subsequently gifted to Parvathi who projected the illegal land, acquired through influence, as 'untainted' property acquired through gift, the ED alleged.