Honble SHETHNA, J.–When the subordinate Court has done substantial justice in the matter then this Court is bound to interfere with such order in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the question to be decided in this petition. (2). Regarding the land in question entries were made in 1963 in favour of the petitioner who is a non-scheduled caste person. After 27 years, the State of Rajasthan made a reference to the Collector in 1990 for correcting the entries and transferring the khatedari rights in favour of the present respondent No.4 who is a scheduled caste person on the ground that the land belonging to scheduled -caste person cannot be transferred to non-scheduled caste person. The said reference was rejected by the learned Collector by his impugned order dated 15.07.91 (Annex.2) only on the technical ground of limitation by observing that after a period of 12 years the petitioner has become entitled by virtue of adverse possession. Therefore, he found the reference made by the State after 27 years as hopelessly time-barred. (3). Respondent No.4 filed revision petition No.185 before the Board of Revenue under Sec.83 and 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The same was allowed by the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue by his order dated 26.02.96 (Annex.-3) in exercise of the powers under Sec. 9 of the Act. The learned Single Member was of the opinion that it was an undisputed fact that the petitioner before him was a scheduled caste person whereas respondent No.2 (the present petitioner) was a non- scheduled caste person and such entry made in 1963 was in clear violation of Sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. He has observed that Khatedari rights can only be accorded to those who are registered as sub-tenants in the revenue-records, meaning thereby that Khatedari rights can be transfe- rred only to sub- tenants and nowhere the name of respondent No.2 (the present petitioner) was shown as sub tenant. The learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Collector and also cancelled the entry dated 20.06.63. The learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Collector and also cancelled the entry dated 20.06.63. The same was challenged by the present petitioner by way of special appeal before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue which was also dismis- sed on the same ground by impugned order dated 31.05.99 (Annex-4). (4). These orders Annex-3 and Annex-4 are challenged by tthe present petitioner before this Court by way of this petition which is labelled as petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Strictly speaking, it is a petition under Article 227 of Constitution and not under Article 226. The scope of Article 227 of the Cons- titution is very narrow and limited inasmuch as this Court cannot even correct an error of law committed by the subordinate Court. In this case, the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue as well as the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue have not committed any error either on law or on facts which may be required to be corrected. In may considered opinion the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue has rightly exercised jurisdiction under Sec. 9 of the Act in favour of respondent No.4 who is a scheduled caste person. The technicality like limitation of 27 years period and the adverse possession would not help the petitioner. In my opinion, the learned Collector was wholly wrong in deciding the case on this line. If the Board of Revenue had not interfered in such type of case and the petition would have come from respondent No.4 before this Court, then this Court would have interfered in the matter. No entry can be made against the provisions of the Act. If such entry is made in collusion with some officers and it is enjoyed for a long period yet no right accrues to the person who obtained such entry by fraud. It is true that the petitioner by now remained in possession for almost 35 years but for an entry obtained by him by fraud and illegal means, therefore, he has no right to urge before this Court that he should be protected. The balance must tilt in favour of the poor, needy and down -trodden person against dishonest influential person. In my view, the Board of Revenue has rightly interfered with the order passed by the Collector. The balance must tilt in favour of the poor, needy and down -trodden person against dishonest influential person. In my view, the Board of Revenue has rightly interfered with the order passed by the Collector. (5). Before parting I must state that when substantial justice is done by the Court below then this Court would certainly not exercise either its supervisory power under Article 227, or its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, of the Constitution. (6). In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this case. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The stay application also stands rejected.