Trial against Yeddy begins...

Sirajin Basha, a city-based lawyer who had filed a corruption case against Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa and his family, was sworn in before the Lokayukta special court yesterday.

Trial against Yeddy begins...

Sirajin Basha, a city-based lawyer who had filed a corruption case against Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa and his family, was sworn in before the Lokayukta special court yesterday. To mark the beginning of the trial, Basha read out the names of Yeddyurappa, his son B Y Raghavendra, son-in-law Sohan Kumar, former minister Krishnaiah Shetty and Dhavalagiri Properties, a real estate company owned by the CM's family members, as the accused.

Up against corruption: Sirajin Basha named Yeddyurappa, his son BY
Raghavendra, son-in-law Sohan Kumar and former minister Krishnaiah
Shetty, as the accused in court yesterday. File pics

Basha alleged that Yeddyurappa used his clout to secure illegal financial gains for his kith and kin. Elaborating on his claim, Basha cited that the CM, between 2003 and 2009, along with others accused entered into criminal conspiracy and purchased, de-notified and then converted agricultural land into residential plots and sold them at high prices.

The scam
The first offence dealt with land for Arkavati Layout, which the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had acquired in Rachenahalli. The accused then illegally purchased 1 acre 12 guntas under acquisition, and then got it de-notified. They then got the same land converted from agricultural land to non-agricultural plots in 10 days with the help of Ramanjaneya, who was the special DC of the city. The complainant stated that this caused the state exchequer a loss of Rs 19.6 crore.

The second offence is the de-notification of land acquired by Yeddyurappa at Survey Number 56 in Rachenahalli. The complainant stated that 16 guntas of land was de-notified and thus, the state exchequer suffered a loss of Rs 7.4 crore. The Lokayukta Court Judge C B Hipparagi asked the complainants to submit certified copies of the documents.

The counsel for the complainant CH Hanumantharaya said that photocopies of the certified documents are admissible as secondary evidence as per Indian Evidence Act, following which the court was adjourned.
The case will now be heard on March 8 and the statement of the complainant will be recorded.