Karnataka: CM siddaramaiah's wife surrenders MUDA land, sparks debate over land compensation

The MUDA case revolves around compensatory sites allocated to Parvathi in a prime area of Mysuru, which is alleged to have a significantly higher property value than her original land.

Author
Bhaskar Chakravorty
Follow us:

Reacting to the news, BJP leader and Vijayapura MLA Basanagouda R Patil criticized Parvathi’s decision as a “damage control” move. (X/ChillamChilli)

Karnataka News: In a significant turn of events, BM Parvathi, wife of Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, announced on Monday that she is returning the compensatory land sites received from the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). Parvathi, one of the accused in a money-laundering case linked to MUDA, stated in a letter that she is voluntarily surrendering the 14 sites allocated to her by the authority.

“I am returning 14 sites and handing over possession to the Authority. Please do the needful at the earliest. I don’t want any wealth, sites, or land for myself. The dignity and honor of my husband and family are far more important to me than any wealth. I have not discussed this with my husband, son, or any family member,” she wrote.

BJP's response: Misuse of power alleged

Reacting to the news, BJP leader and Vijayapura MLA Basanagouda R Patil criticized Parvathi’s decision as a “damage control” move. Patil took to social media, stating, “Meek surrender or damage control? Mrs. Siddaramaiah now surrenders the 14 plots awarded as compensation to her in MUDA. Why such a knee-jerk reaction? Why surrender sites and request for cancellation after a complaint is lodged?” He further alleged, “MUDA case is now an open-and-shut case of clear misuse of power and nepotism.”

The controversial MUDA case

The MUDA case revolves around compensatory sites allocated to Parvathi in a prime area of Mysuru, alleged to have a significantly higher property value than her original land. MUDA had allotted these plots under a 50:50 scheme in exchange for 3.16 acres of land owned by Parvathi. It has been alleged that Parvathi did not hold legal title over the land, which further fueled accusations of irregularities in the allotment.