ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. - Petitioner obtained an order of grant under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, `Act') at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner accepting the plea that he was a tenant of the land as on the appointed date and continued to be in possession and cultivation of the said land until filing the application for grant of land and had not filed an application under Section 48-A in Form 7 for conferring occupancy rights over the said land and further that the said land was vested in the State. That order of the Assistant Commissioner when called in question invoking Section 118(2) of the `Act', the appeal was registered as No. 500 of 2003 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, `KAT'). The KAT, though, had the benefit of the original records of the Assistant Commissioner, for decision making, nevertheless, observed that RTC Pahanis for the year 1973-1974, duly certified and issued on 20th January, 2003, did not disclose the name of Nyathappa, the father of the petitioner, as the cultivator of the land in question. Sequentially, KAT arrived at conclusions detriment to the interest of the petitioner while at the same time, remitted proceeding to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration by order dated 15-10-2014. Hence this petition. 2. The questions for decision making in a proceeding under Section 77-A are whether the applicant was an undisputed tenant of the land in question and whether the lands stood vested with the State as on the appointed date? 3. The KAT, observed that these two questions were not answered and at the instance of the landlord's appeal found it fit to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, while doing so, the KAT, on a wrong premise over admitted facts as found in RTC Pahani for the year 1973-1974, arrived at incorrect factual conclusions. Hence the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record calling for interference. In fact, the original records when placed before this Court on 16-6-2015, it was observed that RTC Pahani of the year 1973-1974 duly certified and issued on 20th January, 2003 does not disclose the name of Nyathappa, the father of the petitioner. 4. Hence the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record calling for interference. In fact, the original records when placed before this Court on 16-6-2015, it was observed that RTC Pahani of the year 1973-1974 duly certified and issued on 20th January, 2003 does not disclose the name of Nyathappa, the father of the petitioner. 4. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed in part, the order of the KAT insofar as it relates to findings contract to fact affecting the interest of the petitioner, over his claim for grant of land under Section 77-A of the Act, is quashed and in all other respects, remains unaltered. 5. On remand, the Assistant Commissioner is directed to consider the claim of the applicant as well as that of the landlord after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass orders strictly in accordance with law and answer relevant questions arising for consideration in the proceeding. Registry is directed to return the LCR to the KAT.