The Karnataka High Court on Thursday issued notice on an activist’s plea challenging a trial court’s decision to accept a report clearing Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his family in an alleged land scam involving the Mysuru Urban Development Authority, Bar and Bench reported.

Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav sought responses from Siddaramaiah, his wife BM Parvathi, brother-in-law Mallikarjun Swamy, former land owner J Devaraju, the Lokayukta Police and the Enforcement Directorate, Live Law reported.

The activist had approached the High Court challenging the special court’s January 28 decision and sought that the probe in the matter be transferred to an independent investigating agency, the legal news outlet reported.

The alleged scam pertains to the allotment of 14 high-value housing sites in Mysuru’s Vijaynagar area to Parvathi in 2021 by the Mysore Urban Development Authority under a state government scheme.

This was allegedly done in exchange for 3.1 acres of land that Parvathi owned in another part of the city. The land was alleged to have been illegally acquired from Dalit families.

The Karnataka governor had approved prosecution against Siddaramaiah in September 2024. A special court had subsequently directed the Lokayukta Police to file a first information report against Siddaramaiah, Parvathi, Swamy and Devaraj.

In February 2025, the Lokayukta police filed a closure report claiming that there was not enough evidence to establish corruption charges against Siddaramaiah, his family and the former land owner.

However, the report had been kept in abeyance to allow the Lokayukta Police to complete investigations into the larger allegations of corruption.

On January 28, a special court in Bengaluru accepted the closure report filed by the Lokayukta Police.

The court, however, clarified that the investigation against other persons accused in the case would continue, Bar and Bench reported.

The ruling has now been challenged by the activist before the High Court.

The activist contended that the special court did not consider the fact that “the allegations in the present case are not in the nature of a private dispute but involve abuse of constitutional office, and therefore required a deeper and independent scrutiny rather than mechanical reliance on the opinion of the investigating agency”, Bar and Bench reported.

He alleged that the trial court had selectively accepted the closure reports against some persons named in the matter, while directing the investigation to continue against others, the legal news portal reported.

This was a sign of “jurisdictional error and a fundamental inconsistency”, the petitioner was quoted as having alleged.