The court allows withdrawal of appeals filed under incorrect provisions, emphasizing the importance of pursuing the correct legal remedy in good faith.

Order

1. Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioners invited Court’s attention towards the written family agreement for partition dated 06.04.2005 and consequential mutation entry dated 16.04.2005 passed by the Tehsildar, Jodhpur and highlighted that said mutation entries were made under section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956 .

2. He submitted that as a matter of fact the appeal thereagainst ought to have been filed under section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1956 whereas due to wrong advice or misconception, the appeal was preferred mentioning section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 , which was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2006 by the District Collector. Against the said order dated 12.04.2006, an appeal was filed by the petitioners under section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, whereas petitioners ought to have availed the remedy under section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

3. While submitting that a wrong remedy has been availed bonafidely, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the petitioners be allowed to withdraw both the appeals which they had filed under sections 75 and 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 with a liberty to file a fresh appeal before the competent authority under section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956 .

4. The present writ petition so also appeals (Appeal before District Collector being Revenue Appeal No.20/2005 and Appeal before B.O.R., Ajmer being Appeal No.2959/2006), which were filed by the petitioners before the appellate authorities under sections 75 and 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 are dismissed as withdrawn.

5. The petitioners are given liberty to file a fresh appeal under section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act within a period of one month from today.

6. In case, appeal is so preferred alongwith the application under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law bearing in mind that the petitioners have bonafidely pursuing their remedy under wrong provision and before the wrong fora.

7. Stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.