Bangalore: The Karnataka High Court allowed a Lokayukta Police probe against BJP National vice-president B S Yeddyurappa and others on a petition challenging the Lokayukta Court order dismissing complaints against them in a land denoti- fication case in Shimoga district on Tuesday October 21.
Justice Anand Byrareddy set aside the Shimoga Lokayukta Court order which dismissed complaints against Yeddyurappa and his son and MLA B Y Raghavendra accusing them of purchasing land through illegal means, and ordered Lokayukta Police to initiate an inquiry into the matter.
The court had dismissed the complaints against Yeddyurappa and others filed by B Vinod, a Shimoga-based advocate, on the grounds that he had not availed himself of sanction from the governor for prosecution prior to filing the complaint.
Challenging the Lokayukta Court order, Vinod filed a criminal revision petition in the High Court contending that Yeddyurappa is not in a similar position (chief minister) as he was at the time of the alleged commission of offence and hence there is no requirement for him to avail sanction from the governor for prosecution prior to filing the complaint.
Vinod alleged that Dhavalagiri Properties, owned by family members of Yeddyurappa, had purchased 69 acres near Hunasekatte village in Bhadravati taluk through benamidars.
The complainant has also alleged that various provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act were violated in purchasing the land, and that Yeddyurappa had misused his power in getting the land transferred to the name of the firm owned by his family members.
State senior BJP leader K S Eshwarappa also probed
Alongside, the Lokayukta police have also probed against former deputy CM and state senior BJP leader K S Eshwarappa in a disproportionate assets case. The court passed the order on a petition filed by a Shimoga-based advocate who challenged the Lokayukta court order dismissing his complaint against Eshwarappa in the case.
Justice Anand Byrareddy set aside the Shimoga Lokayukta Court order, which dismissed the complaint against Eshwarappa, accusing him of amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and ordered the Lokayukta to initiate an inquiry.
The Lokayukta Court had held that the advocate Vinod had not availed himself of sanction from the governor for prosecution prior to filing the complaint.
The advocate had challenged the Lokayukta Court order and filed a revision petition in the High Court. He had maintained there was no need for him to get the Governor’s sanction prior to filing the complaint as Eshwarappa was not in a similar position (Deputy Chief Minister) as he was at the time of the alleged commission of offence.
Eshwarappa had questioned the launch of criminal proceedings against him in the High Court, contending that Vinod had not availed himself of sanction from the Governor. After the High Court told Vinod the complaint would not survive without sanction from the Governor for prosecution, he withdrew it with permission to re-present it after availing himself of sanction. Vinod had written to the office of the Governor seeking sanction for prosecution.
The governor’s office had said that as Eshwarappa was not a public servant now, the applicant need not avail himself of permission to initiate legal action against him.
