MUDA ‘scam’ discussion generates heat in Assembly; opposition’s adjournment notice rejected

PTI, Jul 24, 2024, 4:44 PM IST

Representative image (source: PTI)

Bengaluru: A discussion on the alleged fraudulent allotment of sites to land losers by Mysuru Urban Development Authority, which involves plots given to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvathi, generated heat in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly on Wednesday as the Speaker U T Khader rejected the opposition’s adjournment motion notice on the matter.

While the ruling Congress, citing rules, urged the Speaker not to allow discussion on the issue, opposition BJP, claiming that a needle of suspicion is pointing to the family of the “most important person” of the state, demanded that it be allowed.

The opposition also alleged a political motive behind formation of the inquiry commission to probe the matter, and said that it was aimed at denying the House an opportunity to debate the issue.

“After hearing both sides, as the adjournment notice that the opposition has given is not an urgent matter and as a inquiry commission has been constituted under a retired judge to probe the charges, also as the matter is also not of immediate occurrence, it has been rejected,” the Speaker ruled.

It is alleged that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah’s wife in an upmarket area in Mysuru, which had higher property value as compared to the location of her land which had been “acquired” by the MUDA.

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

The controversial scheme envisages allotting 50 per cent of developed land to the land loser in lieu of undeveloped land acquired for forming layouts.

As the Leader of opposition R Ashoka stood to press for adjournment motion on the issue, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil said it cannot be taken up for discussion as per the rules.

Citing rules under “Procedures and Conduct of Business in Karnataka Legislative Assembly”, he said the issues that are before any tribunals or commissions or authority or courts for adjudication generally cannot be allowed in the form of an adjournment motion.

He also noted that as per the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 a single member inquiry commission was constituted by the government under former High Court Judge Justice P N Desai to probe the charges on July 14, 2024.

Terms of reference for the inquiry commission have also been given, and it has been asked to complete the probe in six months and submit a report, he further said, adding that “as the matter is before the inquiry commission, I request the chair not to allow the adjournment motion, as it cannot be taken as per rules.”

Alleging that attempts were being made to waste the time of the House by citing rules and procedures, Ashoka asked as to how the ruling party members’ were allowed to discuss the Enforcement Directorate probe linked to “Valmiki Corporation Scam”.

Senior BJP MLA Suresh Kumar said the Speaker can allow discussion without hampering the process of investigation. The “other curious point” is the date of appointment of the inquiry commission — just a day before the commencement of the Legislature Session.

“The inquiry commission was constituted to stop the discussion on the issue in the House; it is a Caveat, it is like a anticipatory bail. Aware that the issue will be raised, the government has constituted the commission on July 14, a day ahead of the Assembly session. It is the responsibility of the House to discuss this vital issue, which has become talk of the state and the country. Discussion on the issue should be allowed,” he said.

Patil questioned whether the matter was “really urgent” to be raised as the adjournment motion.

Deputy leader of opposition Arvind Bellad alleged that the Chief Minister and his family were given 14 sites. “The custodian of the House (CM) has indulged in loot.”

This angered ruling Congress MLAs, who alleged that loot happened during the previous BJP regime, leading to heated exchange of words between ruling and opposition benches.

Citing ‘Kaul and Shakdher’, considered to be a guide on rules and produces, Patil said the matter is urgent only if it is of very recent occurrence and it must be raised at the first available opportunity. “They (opposition) had eight days’ time, they did not raise it, they are waiting for political strategies, it means it is not urgent, they are using it for political convenience.”

Noting that the matter which has been continuing for some time cannot be raised through an adjournment motion, he further said: “the adjournment notice contains many issues. Adjournment motion can be raised on a specific issue.”

Suresh Kumar alleged that the Law Minister was trying to take shelter under some rules. “Unfortunately he is defending a very bad case….The needle of suspicion is pointed towards the family of the most important person of the state. When such is the situation it is the responsibility of the House to discuss, let the government reply and defend it. But not allowing discussion is not right.”

He also questioned how the discussion on ED was allowed yesterday, when the matter was in the court and ED was probing a case.

Ashoka said the scam is allegedly pegged at Rs 3,000 crore, and asked: “should it not be discussed?”

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Speaker rejected the adjournment notice and adjourned the House for lunch, amid uproar from opposition members.