JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are in possession of the 25 bighas of land situated in Chak 24 P.B.N., which originally belongs to Chhoga Ram and Hari Ram Meghwal, who are the members of the Scheduled Caste, from whom the petitioners purchased the said land vide sale deed dated 4th May, 1970. The sale deed was entered in the name of Smt. Ratni Devi and Jora Ram. A suit under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was filed by the Tehsildar (Revenue) Suratgarh in the court of the learned S.D.M., Hanumangarh. The suit filed by the State was decreed by the learned S.D.M., Hanumangarh vide his judgment and decree dated 8th September, 1976. A review petition was filed by the petitioners before the learned S.D.M., Hanumangarh who by his order dated 21st April, 1977, dismissed there view petition filed by the petitioners and held that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, which requires interference in the review petition. The petitioner, thereafter, on the basis of the legal advice tendered to him, instead of filing a revision against the review petition, filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8th September, 1976, before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Alongwith the appeal, the petitioners also filed two applications; one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner, Camp Sri Ganganagar, vide his judgment dated 20th March, 1979, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner appellants both on merits as well as being barred by time. The petitioner aggrieved with the judgment dated 20th March, 1979, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner Camp Sri Ganganagar, dismissing the appeal as well as against the order dated 21-4-1977 by which the review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, instead of filing a second appeal, filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, by its judgment dated 31st july, 1984, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner as being barred by time. It is against this judgment that the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 2. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, by its judgment dated 31st july, 1984, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner as being barred by time. It is against this judgment that the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was on the wrong advice given by his counsel that first, a review petition was filed before the learned S.D.M. and thereafter an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority and against that order dismissing the appeal, a revision petition was preferred before the Board of Revenue. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two applications under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act were also moved before the Revenue Appellate Authority but no order on those applications had been passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and without considering those applications, the Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The learned Member, Board of Revenue also did not consider this aspect of the case. 3. Mr. Jakhar, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue as well as of the Revenue Appellate Authority. 4. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners approached their advocate for redressal of the grievance and handed-over the papers to the learned counsel. They are rustic villagers and they know nothing about the law and they approached the court as suggested by their counsel. Therefore, they cannot be punished for the wrong advice given by their counsel. After engaging the counsel, paying his fees and briefing him, it was for the learned counsel to proceed with the matter and to file an appeal or revision as provided under the Act. If a counsel has taken wrong steps and did not choose the proper forum, then the petitioners cannot be punished or allowed to suffer for the wrong action of their counsel as the petitioners have done everything in their power and expected of them. The Revenue Appellate Authority has also decided the appeal on merits and the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.4.77 passed in review petition as well as the original decree dated 8th Sept. 1976. The Revenue Appellate Authority has also decided the appeal on merits and the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.4.77 passed in review petition as well as the original decree dated 8th Sept. 1976. The findings on merits given by the Revenue Appellate Authority were also before the Board of Revenue. Instead of dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner on technical ground of limitation, the Learned Member, Board of Revenue should have considered the case of the petitioners on merits because in approaching the court late, the petitioners were not benefited in any way. It was not expected of the Board to throw away the revision petition or appeal as being barred by time because that will result in a meritorious matter being thrown away on the technical ground of limitation for which the petitioners are neither negligent nor responsible. Substantial justice requires that the matter should have been considered and decided by the Learned Member, Board of Revenue on merits. The delay in approaching the proper court in a proper way was not occasioned on account of any deliberate inaction on the part of the petitioners but the delay occurred on account of the wrong advice given to them. In these facts & circumstances of the case, we think it proper to set aside the order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue and direct the Board of Revenue to decide the case of the petitioners on merits in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the judgment dated 31st July, 1984, passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Member, Board of Revenue to decide the revision petition pending before him treating it as an appeal under Section 224, Rajasthan Tenancy Act filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law. In the facts & circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.Petition allowed and Order set aside and case remanded for decision on merits. *******