Honble SHETHNA, J.–The Assistant Commissioner Colonisation, Chhattargarh - respondent no.3 by his order dated 17.5.89 allotted 18 biswas of Killa no.24 and 18 biswas of Killa no. 25 in Murabba no. 58/56 totalling 1 bighas 16 biswas of uncommand land to the petitioner under Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Govt. Land in Indira Gandhi Colony Canal Area) Rules, 1975 (for short ``the Rules) (Annex. 1). The petitioner claims to be in cultivatory possession of the said land with effect from 27.5.89 as per the order sheet dated 29.5.89 whereby the patta was allotted to the petitioner. However, within one year of allotment of the land, the respondent no.2 Commissioner Colonisation issued notice to the petitioner under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his allotment order dated 29.5.89 should not be set aside as the said land was not available for allotment because it was forest land. It was further stated in the said notice that Mr. Vradhi Chand was not the allotting authority who allotted the land. The said notice was replied and after considering the contentions raised in it, the respondent no.2 set aside the two allotments of small patch of the petitio- ner by his common order dated 22.12.92 ((Annex.3). The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue in revision but the same was also dismissed on 1.5.96 (Annex.5). Hence this petition. (2). Learned counsel Mr. Singh vehemently submitted that the order dated 12.11.87 (Annex.6) passed by the Conservator of Forest, Bikaner clearly shows that the land in question was reverted to the Colonisation Department, therefore, it no more remained a forest land. Inspite of it, the Commissioner Colonisation cancelled his allotment on that ground which is absolutely illegal and unsustainable. Similarly, the Board of Revenue committed an error in dismissing the revision petition without considering the order dated 12.11.87. Relying upon the judgment of this Court (Honble Mr. G.L. Gupta, J) dated 1.4.98 delivered in writ petition no.4296/93 and two other petitions, Mr. Singh submitted that on the basis of the order dated 12.11.87 (Annex.6), similar cancellation orders were set aside by this Court on the ground that the land was no more forest land. However, learned counsel Mr. Relying upon the judgment of this Court (Honble Mr. G.L. Gupta, J) dated 1.4.98 delivered in writ petition no.4296/93 and two other petitions, Mr. Singh submitted that on the basis of the order dated 12.11.87 (Annex.6), similar cancellation orders were set aside by this Court on the ground that the land was no more forest land. However, learned counsel Mr. Singh frankly conceded that the order dated 12.11.87 was neither bro- ught to the notice of Commissioner Colonisation nor to the Board of Revenue. But Mr. Singh submitted that a specific contention was raised by the petitioner before the Commissioner Colonisation as well as Board of Revenue that the land no more remained with the Forest Department. (3). It is true that on the basis of the order dated 12.11.87 (Annex.6), the lear- ned Single Judge of this Court allowed writ petition no. 4296/93 and two other writ petitions on 1.4.98. However, in this case, the allotment of the petitioner was not cancelled only on that ground. The allotment of the petitioner was cancelled also on the ground that without any signatures of the applicant-Raju Ram and without any order of the competent authority, the report of the Patwari and Inspector was submitted which does not bear any date and on 17.5.89, the allotment order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner Colonisation and thereafter on 27.5.89, an order was passed by Mr. Vradhi Chand as Assistant Commissioner Colonisation of allotment of patta and the possession was also handed over to the petitioner on the same day i.e. on 27.5.89, whereas the charge for the post of Assistant Commissioner Colonisation was already taken over by Mr. Ranveer Singh Makkad on 23.5.89. Thus, though Mr. Vradhi Chand was no more on the post of Assistant Commissioner Colonisation, Chhatargarh, he signed the allotment order which was ex- facie bad and illegal. (4). From the above facts, it is clear that (1) the application form was not bearing the signatures of the petitioner and (2) the allotment order was passed by Mr. Vradhi Chand who was not the Assistant Commissioner Colonisation on that day i.e. 27.5.89 as on 23.5.89, Mr. Ranveer Singh Makkad had already taken over the charge as Assistant Commissioner Colonisation, Chhatargarh. Under the circumsta- nces, it cannot be said that while cancelling the allotment order, the Commissioner Colonisation has committed any error. Vradhi Chand who was not the Assistant Commissioner Colonisation on that day i.e. 27.5.89 as on 23.5.89, Mr. Ranveer Singh Makkad had already taken over the charge as Assistant Commissioner Colonisation, Chhatargarh. Under the circumsta- nces, it cannot be said that while cancelling the allotment order, the Commissioner Colonisation has committed any error. Similarly, it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue has also committed any error in dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner. The Board of Revenue has given cogent reasons for dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner. (5). I fully agree with the reasons assigned by the Board of Revenue and it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue has committed any error much less an error of law or jurisdictional error which calls for the interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of which is very narrow and limited. Even error of law committed by the sub- ordinate Court cannot be corrected by this Court in its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. (1). Though this petition is filed under Article 226 but strictly speaking, it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (6). In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance on merits in this petition . Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.