The government's discretion under Section 20 of the Act to exempt land from certain provisions cannot be used to permit the transfer of agricultural land to a transferee legally prohibited from holding such land.

( 1 ) THIS petition is filed for quashing the order dated March 4, 1993 (Annexure-P) issued by the State Government rejecting the review filed by the first respondent and six others.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this case are as follows: Sy. Nos. 2/2 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas situated at Ittamadu village, Uttarahalli hobli, was purchased by one David Jambiah and the members of his family under the registered Sale Deed dated june 25, 1983. These very persons established a Society called the websters CHILDRENS HOME and registered the same under karnataka Societies Registration Act, The said Websters Children home constructed a school building on the land in question and also a play ground. That on April 29, 1988 the Society and the members including the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 filed an application before the Government under Section 20 of the Act for permission to transfer the land on which the school building and play ground are situated to the Society. The said application was rejected by the Government by order dated March 27, 1991 on the ground that the Societies are not entitled to acquire and hold agricultural land and the land in question is notified by the Bangalore development Authority for acquisition. In view of there being some irregularity in the order the petitioners filed a review application before the Government. The said review was rejected by the impugned order.

( 3 ) EVEN though the petitioners have challenged only the impugned order and did not challenge the order dated March 27, 1991 by which the application filed under Section 20 was rejected for the purpose of disposing off this petition I think it is just and appropriate to treat this petition as having filed against the order dated March 27, 1991 also.

( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that under Section 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 that, it shall not be lawful for an educational, religious or charitable institution or Society or Trust to hold any agricultural land. Section 20 of the Act no doubt gives a discretionary power on the Government to exempt any land from the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Act either in public interest or to remove the undue hardship of the owner. In this case, it is the contention of the petitioners that they want to transfer the land in the name of Websters children's Home in the public interest and the impugned order is unsustainable in law as the question of public interest is not considered by the Government. I am not able to persuade myself to agree with the contention of Smt. B. V. Nagarathna, learned Counsel for the petitioners. The question of consideration of public interast would arise only where the transferor and the transferee have a legal right to transfer and to secure the agricultural land. If the transferee is prohibited to hold any agricultural land under any law for the time being in force, such law cannot be defeated by the government in exercise of its power under Section 20 of the Act in the name of public interest. Public interest will come into play only where the parties have a legal right to transfer and acquire. If a person who is legally prohibited to hold an agricultural land is permitted by the Government in exercise of its power under Section 20 of the Act, in my considered view it would affect the public interest instead of promoting the public interest. The violation of law is against the public interest. In this view of the matter, as the impugned order is confined only with respect to the permission to transfer of the land in question in favour of Websters Childrens Home I find no infirmity in the impugned order.

( 5 ) IN the result, this petition fails and accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. However, if the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 have any other right it is open to them to seek such remedy as available in law.

( 6 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

( 7 ) SRI M. Siddagangaiah, learned HCGP is permitted to