Mysuru: Krishnaraja MLA T.S. Srivathsa has demanded a detailed inquiry into what he described as a massive land scam worth nearly Rs 200 crore involving government land located at the foot of Chamundi Hills. The BJP legislator alleged that private individuals had entered into a sale agreement for government property valued at hundreds of crores, raising serious questions about how such a transaction was allowed to proceed.
Addressing a press conference on Thursday, the MLA claimed that a sale agreement had been registered for an amount of Rs 40 crore for 24 acres and 10 guntas of land that he said belongs to the government. According to him, the market value of the property exceeds Rs 200 crore, making the alleged irregularities a matter that requires urgent investigation.
Allegation of illegal sale agreement
Srivathsa questioned how a private individual could sell land that was already recorded as government property. He also raised concerns about the role of officials involved in registering the agreement.
“How could a private person sell government land? How could government officials allow registration of such a sale agreement?” he asked while addressing the media.
The legislator argued that the circumstances surrounding the transaction indicate possible administrative lapses or deliberate wrongdoing. He stressed that the issue must be investigated thoroughly to determine how the registration process was completed despite the legal status of the property.
Background of the land ownership dispute
Explaining the history of the property, Srivathsa said the land in question measures 26 acres and is located under Nehru Loka at Kurubarahalli in Survey No. 4, Block E and E1. The land originally belonged to Revathi M. Uchil, who had sought permission from the government to sell the property in 1984.
According to him, Revathi submitted an application to the government on June 30, 1984 requesting approval to sell the land. The matter later reached the High Court, which directed the government to hold discussions with the applicant and take a decision.
Following the legal proceedings and government review, an order was issued on March 24, 1992 allowing her to sell only eight acres of the property. The permission also clearly specified that the sale could be carried out strictly for agricultural purposes and that the transaction had to be completed within two years.
Srivathsa said that based on these conditions, the remaining portion of the property should have remained intact and under government control.
Questions over land records
The MLA pointed out that even if the permitted eight acres had been sold, there should still have been 16 acres and 10 guntas remaining from the original landholding.
However, he referred to an order issued by the Tahsildar on August 8, 2025 directing officials to maintain the existing details in Column 11 of the Pahani land document. According to the legislator, the Pahani records indicate that 24 acres and 10 guntas of land in Survey No. 4 had been acquired by the government as per the 2010–11 land records.
Srivathsa further stated that a Pahani extract obtained on October 10, 2025 lists the land as being in possession of Sudha, daughter of M. Manmohan, along with Prashanth M. Uchil, Jyothi and Vanaja—who are described as the children of Manmohan.
Manmohan is reportedly the husband of Revathi M. Uchil, according to the MLA.
He also noted that the land records mention a High Court order dated May 19, 2020 under the rights column. At the same time, the liabilities column clearly states that the land had already been acquired by the government.
Role of registration authorities questioned
The MLA questioned how a sale agreement could be registered despite the liabilities column showing government acquisition.
He pointed out that even minor bank loans recorded under the liabilities column usually prevent the Sub-Registrar from allowing property registrations. In such cases, registration is typically halted until the liability is cleared.
“Even if there is a small bank loan mentioned as a liability in the Pahani, the Sub-Registrar does not permit any registration. But in this case, how was the registration allowed despite government acquisition being recorded?” he asked.
According to him, the sale agreement was executed between individuals claiming to be legal heirs of Revathi M. Uchil and two real estate developers.
He said the matter raises serious questions about possible irregularities in the verification process followed by the registration authorities.
Demand for government inquiry
Srivathsa announced that he will formally write to the Chief Minister, Revenue Minister, Urban Development Minister, District in-charge Minister H.C. Mahadevappa and the Chief Secretary seeking a departmental inquiry into the issue.
He demanded strict action against officials found responsible for allowing the alleged irregularities.
The MLA emphasised that if government land had indeed been misused or illegally transferred, those involved must be held accountable. He also said transparency in land records and registration procedures is essential to prevent such controversies in the future.
Srivathsa added that the government must clarify the ownership status of the land and ensure that public property is protected from misuse.
Conclusion
The allegations have brought renewed attention to land management and record-keeping systems, particularly in areas where government and private ownership claims overlap. If proven true, the case could expose major procedural lapses in land administration and registration processes.
Officials are yet to issue a formal response to the claims. The demand for a departmental probe is likely to trigger further scrutiny of the land records and the circumstances under which the sale agreement was registered.