The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has termed ‘illegal’ the allotment of 14 sites as compensation in lieu of 3.16 acres to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife B.M. Parvathi by Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA). It also termed illegal’ the denotification and conversion of the said land for non-agricultural purposes.

The documents accessed by The Hindu show that this is part of the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued by ED on January 17 for 142 sites, mostly belonging to real estate agents and not related to the Chief Minister’s family, as Ms. Parvathi returned the 14 sites to MUDA in 2024. The ED said that it is evident from the investigation that there was an attempt at money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and lists Mr. Siddaramaiah and Ms. Parvathi as accused, among others. 

However, the ED has only said one C.T. Kumar, who claims to be a personal assistant to Mr. Siddaramaiah, wielded influence in the allotment of 14 alternative sites and then MUDA commissioner D.B. Natesh selected the alternative sites himself and there was a preferential treatment in the case. But it doesn’t indicate that the probe had determined the direct role of Mr. Siddaramaiah, if any. However, the ED pointed out that Mr. Siddaramaiah was either Deputy Chief Minister or the Leader of the Opposition when crucial developments took place in the case.

The ED claimed that the modus operandi of illegal allotment to generate proceeds of crime in the form of MUDA sites and subsequent projection of the sites as untainted, having obtained them as compensation, was deployed in several cases and said that the investigation revealed that 1,095 sites had been illegally allotted.

It has to be noted that subsequent to this PAO, the High Court declared actions of the ED against Mr. Natesh as “unwarranted, illegal and abuse of process of law”. The High Court also stayed the ED summons to Ms. Parvathi and Minister Byrathi Suresh in the case. 

The said land in Kesare village was owned by one Ninga and was notified in 1992 and denotified in 1997, on the application of Ninja’s son J. Devaraju. The ED said that the MUDA board discussed the issue on July 24, 1997, and resolved that denotification could be allowed if it did not hamper layout development. The ED says examination of the layout plan indicates the land parcel was in the centre and denotification hampered the layout. The ED concluded that the “denotification process is not based on any reasoning”.

The ED claimed that satellite imagery from 2001, 2002, and 2003 showed development in the land, while B.M. Mallikarjun Swamy bought the land from J. Devaraju in 2004 as agricultural land, even as MUDA had its possession. Neither the tahsildar nor the Deputy Commissioner noted the development during their spot inspection, the ED said and concluded that the entire conversion process was “not based on facts on the ground” and “clearly indicates all these proceedings are influenced”.

In 2010, Mr. Mallikarjun Swamy gifts the said land to his sister Ms. Parvathi and she applied seeking compensation for MUDA developing the said land despite it being denotified in 2014. The ED further pointed to alleged violations of MUDA norms in allotting 14 sites in Vijayanagar to Ms. Parvathi. It claimed that the then commissioner Mr. Natesh undertook the proposal to allot alternate sites on his own accord and himself selected the sites. “The 14 sites were allotted illegally to Ms. Parvathi in contravention of statutory guidelines on allotment of sites,” the ED concluded.