Lahari, J.:- A Bakijai proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and certain orders were made by the Bakijai Officer in Bakijai Case No. 101 of 1974-75. Being aggrieved by the orders, the petitioner preferred an appeal purported to be under section 147 (a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, (hereinafter called the "Regulation"). With­out entering into the merits of the case, the learned Board of Revenue held that no appeal lay before the Deputy Commi­ssioner under section 147(b) of the Regulation. However, the learned Board of Revenue instead of returning the mem­orandum of appeal to appellant for presentation to the pro­per court, dismissed the appeal for "want of jurisdiction". 2. Counsel for the parties agree before us that against the impugned orders, the proper forum of appeal was the Deputy Commissioner, under section 147 (b) of 'the Regula­tion'. As such, the finding of the learned Board of Revenue that appeal was not entertainable by it must be upheld. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction vested in it by any law for the time being in force to dismiss an appeal which it could not have entertained at all. We are of the opinion that when a tribunal or an authority has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, it cannot dismiss the same. Dismissal of an appeal debars a party to agitate the matter in an appropriate forum. The order of dismissal becomes final and binding. The proper order, in our opinion, should have been to refuse to entertain the appeal for want of jurisdic­tion with a direction to return the memo, of appeal to the appellant for presentation before a proper authority compe­tent to entertain and dispose of the appeal. Such a pro­cedure enables a party to present the appeal praying exclusion of time in respect of the proceeding 'bona fide' prosecuted in a court without jurisdiction, as contemplated under section 14 of the Limitation Act. However, the question as to whe­ther section 14 of the Limitation Act applies in so far as the persent appeal is concerned is a matter for decision about which we do not express any final opinion. However, we are of the firm opinion that the learned Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal. However, the question as to whe­ther section 14 of the Limitation Act applies in so far as the persent appeal is concerned is a matter for decision about which we do not express any final opinion. However, we are of the firm opinion that the learned Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal. As such, we quash the impugned order of dismissal of the appeal and direct the learned Board of Revenue to return the memo of appeal to the appellant after making necessary endorsements as is required under the law. 3. In the result, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Send down the records to the learned Board of Revenue immediately.