Honble SHETHNA, J.–Two contentions have been raised in this special appeal by learned counsel Shri Kalla (i) that the reference was made in this case after inordinate delay of 18 years, therefore, subsequent orders passed by the authorities below and not interfered by the learned Single Judge in writ petition are bad in law and liable to set aside. In support of his submission Mr.Kalla placed re- liance upon the Division Bench of this court in case of Anandi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1), and (ii) the authorities below committed error in relying upon the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, whereby, the transfer of land belonging to Scheduled Tribe to non-scheduled Tribe persons is barred, as the transaction in this case was effected before the Tenancy Act came into force. (2). First submission of Mr.Kalla cannot be accepted for the simple reason that Anandi Lals Case(supra) has no application on the facts of the case. In Anandi Lals Case (supra) there was a inordinate delay of as many as 25 years. (3). Apart from that, the facts of that case were that petitioner purchased the right of cultivation in an auction held in 1955 by making highest bid. He was in po- ssession of the land in question since 1955. On September 22,1958, before the Act came into force, there was a decree in his favour from the competent Court passed by back in 1957 and mutation entry was made in the revenue record in his name. After the lapse of about 25 years the Addl. Collector sought to exercise his powers of making reference to the Board of Revenue under the Tenancy Act. On facts of that case the Division Bench of this Court held that the exercise of powers was unreasonable and arbitrary and did not justify exercise of powers after such an inordinate delay. Where as, in the instant case facts are totally different. It is true that in this case also there is a delay of 18 years in making reference by the Addl. Collector, but on facts of this case it has been satisfactorily explained. It may be stated that this objection was never raised before any of the authority below or even before the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition in limine. Collector, but on facts of this case it has been satisfactorily explained. It may be stated that this objection was never raised before any of the authority below or even before the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition in limine. Such contention should ordinarily be not allowed to be raised for the first time in special appeal, particularly when it is not raised before the courts below, however, in the interest of justice, we have allowed Mr.Kalla to raise this point and also gone throu- gh the record of the case. From the facts of this case, it is clear that the suit was a collusive one and in our opinion the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the decree can not be considered or relied upon. (4). Apart from this fact, there is one more additional feature in this case namely that even according to Jamabandi of samvat year 2029 to 2032 the name of original owner belonging to Scheduled Tribe was mentioned. (5). In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, in our considered opinion the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Anandi Lals Case (Supra) has no application. We must also state that this provision of Section 42(2) was introduced in the Tenancy Act for the protection of rights of SC/ST persons to save their valuable lands. On facts, when the authorities below have concurrently found that the transfer was hit by the provisions of Section 42 of the Tenancy Act then this Court in special appeal would not interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition in limine. In case of Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim (2), the Apex Court has clearly observed that the powers of High Court is very narrow and limited and even error on law cannot be corrected. In this case, there is no error of law is committed by the Courts below. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the Order passed by the Courts below or the Order passed by the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition in limine. (6). In view of the above discussion, this special appeal fails and is hereby dis- missed.