New Karnataka Lokayukta in a spot

Though Patil had claimed that the Vyalikaval land was bought in 2006 at a special auction to which the rules did not apply,he is expected to officially react to the allegations against him on Monday. He also said he had asked his wife to return the housing society plot.

Incidentally,in one of his first actions as Lokayukta,Patil had launched a drive to reduce corruption in the offices of registrars of properties across Bangalore.

Patil had said in his declaration that his wife Annapoorna Patil owned a 4012 square feet plot at plot number 252 of Bangalore Development Authority at Nagavara village. The plot is part of the 176 acres bought by Vyalikaval from the government to build a housing society.The plot was sold to Annapoorna and a member of the society through a sale deed dated October 11,2006 for Rs 22,58,090.

Documents show that Patil and his wife also own a 2,400 square feet plot at Vasanthnagar in Bangalore,allotted in in 1985 by the government,as well as a 9,600 square feet plot at controversial Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society at Jakkur village near Bangalore,allotted in 1994.

But it is the property acquired in 2006 in Annapoorna’s name that has been called into question,as it was allegedly bought in violation of rules for house building cooperative societies.

These rules state that sites can be allotted to members only if “he/she does not already own a site or plot or flat in his/her name or in the name of any other member of family… in the corporation limits/development authority limits in whose limit the society is situated”. While some political leaders have said the charge was minor,legal experts have questioned Patil’s ability to be an effective anti-corruption authority in the light of his alleged impropriety.

Leader of Opposition,G Parameshwar of the Congress said “all housing societies are full of such violations. It is no violation of law since the plots were allotted by a private housing society”.

However,former Karnataka advocate general R N Narasimhamurthy differed. “Patil’s moral authority to stand up to corrupt practices employed by others has been undermined,” he said. “It is up to him to decide whether to continue in office or not.”