Judgment :- 1. The order Ext. P2 of the appellate authority is not one which could be sustained. It is not in accordance with law. It does not conform to the requirements of an appellate judgment where the authority sitting in appeal is the final authority on facts and law. Various decisions of this court have laid down as to what exactly should be the content or the requirements of an appellate order under the Land Reforms Act. In Neelakanta Pillai v. Damodaran, 1981 KLT (Short Notes) page 44, case No. 82, Bhat, J. stated that the judgment of the appellate authority must indicate that it has applied its mind to the contentions of the parties and the evidence and the circumstances. While it is not necessary that the judgment should be a long and elaborate one, it must refer atleast in brief to the broad contentions of the parties and the evidence and the circumstances leading to the conclusion arrived at by the authority. 2. In Krishnan v. Kunhiraman, 1984 KLT (Short Notes) page 8 case No. 15, Sukumaran, J., dealing again with an order of the appellate authority under the Land Reforms Act stated that valuable rights are adjudicated by the Tribunals functioning under the Act and that they had an onerous responsibility. The necessity to formulate the points, to consider the evidence having a bearing on the points, to discuss the rival contentions and to project the reasons which weigh with the appellate authority for accepting the one view and rejecting the other, were all essential requirements to the exercise of the appellate power. 3. A Division Bench of this court had occasion to deal with the decision of an appellate authority in a matter relating to an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed for default in Kadeeja Umma v. Appellate Authority (1994 KLT 481.) The Division Bench proceeded on the basis that the order of the appellate authority should be one supported by reasons and not merely based on the feeling of the authority. 4. The basis of the decision in appeal should be apparent from the judgment. The appellate authority should apply its mind to the contentions, the circumstances, and the evidence, oral and documentary, weigh the same and then arrive at a conclusion of its own. 4. The basis of the decision in appeal should be apparent from the judgment. The appellate authority should apply its mind to the contentions, the circumstances, and the evidence, oral and documentary, weigh the same and then arrive at a conclusion of its own. It should be clear from its order that all the aspects of the case presented before it have been adverted to, before the decision was arrived at. It does not satisfy the requirement of a valid judgment if the appellate authority merely states its decision, without any reasons. This requirement of reasons is all the more so, when the judgment in appeal is ore of reversal. It must be apparent from what the appellate authority states by way of reasons, first of ell that it has come to grips with the case, considered the point which is at issue between the parties and indicate the evidence on which it has come to its conclusion. (See R. V. Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Khan (Mahmud) 1983 (2) All ER 420). A mere ipsi dixit of the appellate authority that there is no sufficient evidence, or that it is not acceptable or the like, by itself, is net sufficient. 5. That is what has happened in this case. The application for purchase of landlord's rights was one filed by the petitioner claiming to be a varamdar as per varachit of the year 1955. The varachit was, according to the petitioner, rot available for production in court. Three witnesses were therefore examined en the side of the petitioner to prove the varam arrangement. On the basis of the testimony of these witnesses, and the other evidence in the case, the Lard Tribunal held that be was a varamdar, and hence a "tenant" entitled to purchase the landlord's rights. The landlord appealed. The appeal war allowed by a perfunctory judgment of the appellate authority where after reciting the bare facts, and the decision arrived at by the Land Tribunal, and without anything more, the appellate authority went on to state as follows: "On hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, and perusing the records, I consider that there was no sufficient evidence before the Land Tribunal to pass the impugned order. He should have resorted to other methods to gel more evidence from the parties". He should have resorted to other methods to gel more evidence from the parties". The appeal was therefore allowed and the matter remitted for fresh disposal to the Land Tribunal. 6. As pointed out earlier this is not a judgment in which there is any consideration of the evidence or the materials on record, to form the basis of the decision. The judgment, accordingly deserves to be set aside. I therefore, quash Ext. P2 and remit the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration of the appeal in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.