<p>A private complaint had been filed in the court on Monday alleging that the MLA had grabbed a piece of land belonging to Mallamma by fabricating the sale deed and other documents. While Muniraju is the main accused in the complaint, the then tahsildar of Bangalore North, Ranganath, Revenue Inspector Suresh, and two private persons Parameshwarappa and Rajamma have also been named in the case.<br /><br />The matter, referred under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been posted to November 19.<br /><br />The complaint filed by Mallamma’s son-in-law Puttaswamy states that Survey No 12/1, measuring 1 acre and 15 guntas in Kereguddadahalli in Yeshwantpur hobli and belonging to Mallamma, was acquired by the government under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. <br /><br />Mallamma approached the High Court challenging the acquisition. A single judge dismissed her application. Later, she approached the division bench of the High Court, which ruled in her favour in 2007 and instructed the government to return the land to its original owner. </p>.<p>Meanwhile, Muniraju, the complaint said, entered into a sale agreement with Keshavamurthy who was never the owner of the property at any time. However, when Mallamma approached the Lokayukta with a complaint, an inquiry revealed that the sale deed executed by Keshavamurthy was not correct.<br /><br />Later, Muniraju applied for mutation of the land, which was rejected by the revenue inspector. The officer was transferred and his successor Suresh accepted the mutation application.<br /><br />When he got wind of this, the complainant approached the Assistant Commissioner and got a stay on the proceedings. Despite repeated attempts, Mallamma was unable to get a copy of the RTC (record of tenancy and crops).<br /><br />Puttaswamy has also submitted evidence of a ‘sting operation’ done on the revenue officials, who supposedly revealed the modus operandi of the land-grabbing and the involvement of the MLA in the deal. A transcript of the recording has also been submitted to the court. The complaint has been lodged under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.<br /><br />The matter has been posted to November 2.<br /><br />The counsel for the complainant submitted that if Muniraju’s claim was accepted, then Mallamma would lose her land. <br /><br />The transcripts provided by the complainant to the court allegedly reveal the influence Muniraju had on the revenue officials to lay claim to the land.</p>
<p>A private complaint had been filed in the court on Monday alleging that the MLA had grabbed a piece of land belonging to Mallamma by fabricating the sale deed and other documents. While Muniraju is the main accused in the complaint, the then tahsildar of Bangalore North, Ranganath, Revenue Inspector Suresh, and two private persons Parameshwarappa and Rajamma have also been named in the case.<br /><br />The matter, referred under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been posted to November 19.<br /><br />The complaint filed by Mallamma’s son-in-law Puttaswamy states that Survey No 12/1, measuring 1 acre and 15 guntas in Kereguddadahalli in Yeshwantpur hobli and belonging to Mallamma, was acquired by the government under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. <br /><br />Mallamma approached the High Court challenging the acquisition. A single judge dismissed her application. Later, she approached the division bench of the High Court, which ruled in her favour in 2007 and instructed the government to return the land to its original owner. </p>.<p>Meanwhile, Muniraju, the complaint said, entered into a sale agreement with Keshavamurthy who was never the owner of the property at any time. However, when Mallamma approached the Lokayukta with a complaint, an inquiry revealed that the sale deed executed by Keshavamurthy was not correct.<br /><br />Later, Muniraju applied for mutation of the land, which was rejected by the revenue inspector. The officer was transferred and his successor Suresh accepted the mutation application.<br /><br />When he got wind of this, the complainant approached the Assistant Commissioner and got a stay on the proceedings. Despite repeated attempts, Mallamma was unable to get a copy of the RTC (record of tenancy and crops).<br /><br />Puttaswamy has also submitted evidence of a ‘sting operation’ done on the revenue officials, who supposedly revealed the modus operandi of the land-grabbing and the involvement of the MLA in the deal. A transcript of the recording has also been submitted to the court. The complaint has been lodged under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.<br /><br />The matter has been posted to November 2.<br /><br />The counsel for the complainant submitted that if Muniraju’s claim was accepted, then Mallamma would lose her land. <br /><br />The transcripts provided by the complainant to the court allegedly reveal the influence Muniraju had on the revenue officials to lay claim to the land.</p>
