Opposition declares whitewash effort in 2014 letter

Bengaluru: Erasure of a line utilizing whitener in a 2014 letter created by Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s spouse Parvathi to the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) has actually caused insurance claims of a whitewash by damaging records, which the federal government refutedWednesday

In this 2014 letter, Parvathi looked for different land instead of her 3.16 acres on which MUDA had actually created a format.

“So far, I have not received any compensation from MUDA. Therefore, in lieu of my 3.16 acres, I request the same extent of land (blanked out by whitener) in an equivalent layout formed by MUDA. Or else, my land should be returned,” the letter states.

This is the letter Siddaramaiah said he put on hold as he was the chief minister at the time. In 2022, when the BJP was in power, Parvathi was given 14 sites in the Vijayanagar Layout in lieu of 3.16 acres.

The Opposition BJP and JD(S) claimed that whitener was used to erase a line in which Parvathi specifically sought alternative land in the posh Vijayanagar Layout. The site is at the core of the allegations in the land allotment scam for which Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has sanctioned Siddaramaiah’s investigation and prosecution.

Siddaramaiah has maintained that his wife did not seek alternative plots in any specific locality.

“Our suspicion has grown stronger against Siddaramaiah who has been claiming that his wife didn’t seek plots in any specific layout. For us to get answers, Siddaramaiah must resign so that there’s an unbiased and transparent investigation,” Leader of the Opposition R Ashoka said.

Union Minister H D Kumaraswamy, who is also the JD(S) state president, accused Siddaramaiah of ‘lying this whole time’ in the MUDA case.

Urban Development Minister BS Suresha (Byrathi) said no document was tampered with. “There must have been a typing mistake. She (Parvathi) must have committed an error, which was erased using a whitener,” he said, pointing out that erasure did not impact the contextual congruence of the sentence.

In the 2014 letter, Parvathi states that MUDA formed the Devanur Layout on her land in 2001. However, her brother Mallikarjunaswamy purchased the land three years later in 2004. It was then gifted to her in 2010.

“How was the land purchased in 2004 when a layout had come there? The mutation register showed it was MUDA property. How was it registered? Was your brother-in-law dumb?” Kumaraswamy claimed.