Lokayukta lets Somanna off the hook
The Lokayukta police will file a B report in the alleged illegal land de-notification case against Housing Minister V. Somanna and other accused, including former Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa. The Lokayukta police, who investigated the case, claimed that Mr Somanna was not aware that 22 guntas of land he bought was under acquisition and that Mr Yeddyurappa didn’t receive any pecuniary gains for the denotification order. The Lokayukta police have sent a notice to the complainant, Ravi Krishna Reddy, directing him to file objections to the B report, which will be filed on Wednesday.
A software engineer, Mr Reddy had filed the private complaint against Mr Somanna and others, stating that Mr Yeddyurappa had ordered the denotification of 22 guntas in Nagadevanahalli in 2009 to an education trust owned by Mr Somanna’s wife Shailaja. The land had been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority. But despite the acquisition Lingaiah sold his share of the property on Survey Numbers 77 and 78 through a sale deed to Ms Shylaja in 2004. A rectification deed was executed in 2005.
The complainant alleged that after the rectification deed, Mr Somanna and his family constructed an educational institution building by misleading the authorities. The denotification did not happen between 2006 and 2009, but the building had already come up. The denotification process was completed following an order from the then chief minister Yeddyurappa, despite an adverse report by Urban Development Department Principal Secretary D. Thangaraj.
The Lokayukta police said Mr Somanna was not a public representative when the denotification order was passed. He had lost the Vijayanagar by-poll and denotification was ordered before he became an MLC and a minister thereafter, the police said. Interestingly, the Lokayukta police, who registered an FIR in the case last year, have obtained a legal opinion from Panchakshari Math, a special public prosecutor Lokayukta police appointed last week. The Lokayukta report states that the registrar was unaware of the BDA notification when the two sale deeds were executed.
Post new comment