Police have registered an FIR against unnamed KIADB officials and four private individuals following a complaint that alleges a Rs 4.06-crore scam in land acquisition for Namma Metro’s KR Puram-Silk Board line.
The FIR was filed by Yatish M, 42, a Jayanagar resident who claims to be one of the seven joint owners of the nearly 200-square metre land that the metro has acquired at Benniganahalli, near KR Puram, in eastern Bengaluru.
According to Yatish, the acquired portion is part of a two-acre, 21-gunta land parcel that he and six others inherited from their great-grandfather B M Muniswamappa, a landlord. In 2014, a civil court ruled in favour of the seven joint owners in Original Suit No 8842/1980, he said.
Of this land, about 5,000 square feet have been rented to a used car showroom.
In 2021, the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) issued a public notification seeking to acquire about 200 square metres for the KR Puram-Silk Board metro line. And in 2022, KIADB issued a final notification and disbursed compensation of Rs 4.06 crore to Jayaram Tirumalesh, Uday B M, Vinay B M and Mohammed Majok Ahmed.
Tirumalesh claims to be the son of B M Ramaswamy, the unmarried son of Muniswamappa, the original owner. Uday and Vinay claim to be the sons of Mohan Raj, another self-proclaimed son of Ramaswamy. Yathish said Tirumalesh, Uday and Vinay had lost their claims to the land in the 2014 judgement. Ahmed runs the car showroom.
Yathish alleged that Tirumalesh, Uday and Vinay forged ownership documents and got compensation from KIADB. Ahmed forged a tenant agreement and got compensation on that basis, Yathish claimed.
He added that Ahmed’s car showroom is located in survey number 83/1 whereas he got compensation for land that’s located in survey number 83/2. According to Yathish, Ahmed had petitioned the high court against a city civil court judgement with respect to the “forged” rental agreement. The matter is still pending in the high court, he stated.
Yathish alleged that the KIADB “disregarded” the court cases as well as a remark of caution made by the BMRCL by awarding compensation to the four people.
A KIADB official said they paid the landowners and the tenant based on a “valid” rental agreement. “In this case, the tenant had put up all the structures. We assessed the property under Section 26 of the 2013 land acquisition. We paid the landowner as well as the owner of the showroom,” the official told DH.
He added: “We followed the BMRCL’s recommendation. They assessed the value of the property. Our job was to find out who the rightful owner of the land was, issue the notification and disburse the
compensation.”