Honble SHETHNA, J.–There seems to be a sheer bogus transaction and under the guise of such transaction the petitioner Bhola Ram, who is a Govt. employee working in Forest Department has filed this petition through his special power of attorney holder and challenged the orders passed by the courts below in this writ petition. The land in question belong to one deceased Kana Ram, which was alleged to have been sold through agreement to sale to the petitioner, which was never materialized and sale was never completed within the prescribed period of three years from the date of agreement to sale. It has also been found by the courts below that petitioner being a Government servant working in the Forest Department was not cultivating the land personally but through one Kabal Singh, who was in cultivatory possession belonging to non-scheduled caste. It clearly appears that this is a litigation filed by Kabal Singh, who belongs to non-scheduled caste, through this present petitioner, who said to be a scheduled caste person. Considering all this, the courts below have found that there was a clear violation of Sec.42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. (2). Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the courts below have committed any error much less error on law or jurisdictional error which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Strictly speaking this is a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of which is very narrow and limitted. The Apex Court has also held in a case reported in A.I.R. 1984 SC 38 (1) that even error on law cannot be corrected by the High Court in exercise of powers under Art.227 of the Constitution. As stated earlier, in this case, I do not find any error much less error on facts or law or jurisdictional error which calls for interference by this Court. Hence, rejected.