<p>The city police have submitted a ‘B’ report to a city court stating that there is no substance in the complaint that former chief minister Siddaramaiah had constructed a house on agriculture land.</p>.<p>Gangaraju had filed a complaint with the Second Senior Grade Civil Court stating that Siddaramaiah had violated laws in constructing the house.</p>.<p>Police Commissioner<br />Dr A Subramanyeswara Rao said the complaint would have been filed due to a misunderstanding and it has come to light in an investigation by Lakshmipuram police.</p>.<p>The report states that the CITB (erstwhile MUDA) had not acquired the land when Siddaramaiah bought it and constructed the house. “Siddaramaiah bought the land from a private person and sold it to another person later. The land conversion for residential purposes was done well in advance,” the report<br />said. </p>.<p>In 1981, CITB had acquired 535 acres of land under Hinkal Grama Panchayat for developing the Vijayanagar Second Stage. After the land was acquired and developed into a layout and distributed as sites, Gram Panchayat former president Papanna applied to the MUDA to drop his 30 guntas of land from the layout. When the land was denotified by MUDA, Siddaramaiah was the deputy chief minister in J H Patel government.</p>.<p>The denotified land was shared among the family members of Papanna. Siddaramaiah had bought 10 guntas of land, a share of Papanna’s aunt Sakamma and constructed a house. In 2003, he sold the house. Then, Sakamma applied to MUDA for an alternative land. She got a site from MUDA. But, it is not clear on what grounds she was allotted an alternative site. Again in December 2017, Sakamma’s family members applied for another alternative site with the MUDA when the issue came to light.</p>.<p>Then, Gangaraju filed a complaint before the court, alleging that the MUDA was about to allot the second alternative site when the grounds for the first alternative site were not clear. The court had directed the Lakshmipuram police to investigate the matter and submit a report. </p>.<p>Gangaraju had demanded a CBI enquiry into the case, alleging that there was no progress in the investigation. He had written a letter in this regard to the DG&IGP. Hence, the DGP had sought a report from the city police.</p>.<p>Gangaraju said he would appeal against the ‘B’ report of the police, before the<br />court.</p>
<p>The city police have submitted a ‘B’ report to a city court stating that there is no substance in the complaint that former chief minister Siddaramaiah had constructed a house on agriculture land.</p>.<p>Gangaraju had filed a complaint with the Second Senior Grade Civil Court stating that Siddaramaiah had violated laws in constructing the house.</p>.<p>Police Commissioner<br />Dr A Subramanyeswara Rao said the complaint would have been filed due to a misunderstanding and it has come to light in an investigation by Lakshmipuram police.</p>.<p>The report states that the CITB (erstwhile MUDA) had not acquired the land when Siddaramaiah bought it and constructed the house. “Siddaramaiah bought the land from a private person and sold it to another person later. The land conversion for residential purposes was done well in advance,” the report<br />said. </p>.<p>In 1981, CITB had acquired 535 acres of land under Hinkal Grama Panchayat for developing the Vijayanagar Second Stage. After the land was acquired and developed into a layout and distributed as sites, Gram Panchayat former president Papanna applied to the MUDA to drop his 30 guntas of land from the layout. When the land was denotified by MUDA, Siddaramaiah was the deputy chief minister in J H Patel government.</p>.<p>The denotified land was shared among the family members of Papanna. Siddaramaiah had bought 10 guntas of land, a share of Papanna’s aunt Sakamma and constructed a house. In 2003, he sold the house. Then, Sakamma applied to MUDA for an alternative land. She got a site from MUDA. But, it is not clear on what grounds she was allotted an alternative site. Again in December 2017, Sakamma’s family members applied for another alternative site with the MUDA when the issue came to light.</p>.<p>Then, Gangaraju filed a complaint before the court, alleging that the MUDA was about to allot the second alternative site when the grounds for the first alternative site were not clear. The court had directed the Lakshmipuram police to investigate the matter and submit a report. </p>.<p>Gangaraju had demanded a CBI enquiry into the case, alleging that there was no progress in the investigation. He had written a letter in this regard to the DG&IGP. Hence, the DGP had sought a report from the city police.</p>.<p>Gangaraju said he would appeal against the ‘B’ report of the police, before the<br />court.</p>