ORDER Huluvadi G. Ramesh , J.—Petitioners have sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 23-2-2012 passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-A and for such other orders. According to the petitioners, they along with one more person, have purchased the land in Sy. No. 270/1 of Cherkady Grama Panchayat, Udupi from their vendor one Shashidhar Shetty for valid consideration. The said land is a punja land and not an agricultural land. The Special Tahsildar, Brahmavara has issued notice on 19-10-2011 to the petitioners and another person to appear before him along with the documents. Subsequently, in his letter dated 29-12-2011 to the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, the Tahsildar has stated that the petitioners have violated the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Thereafter, 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner in the proceedings before him, alleging violation of the above provisions, has passed the impugned order declaring the sale deed dated 25-9-2009 as null and void and ordered to take possession of the land in question to the Government. Hence, this petition. 2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 3. According to the learned Government Pleader, the Assistant Commissioner has got the jurisdiction and the impugned order passed does not suffer from any illegality. 4. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act enables the Deputy Commissioner to pass orders and not the Assistant Commissioner. Some of the documents produced by the petitioners have not been considered by the Assistant Commissioner while passing the impugned order, as such, it is violative of the procedure contemplated. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner as a matter of fact finding, the Appellate Tribunal has got the power to re-appreciate and consider the documents which are left out by the Competent Authority and pass appropriate orders as to whether there is any violation of the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Hence, it is for the petitioners to exhaust the remedy before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. If they are aggrieved by any such order being passed by the Tribunal, they can very well-approach this Court thereafter. 5. With the above observations, leaving open all the contentions, petitions are disposed of.