Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Since the same controversy is involved in all these matters, the same are being decided by this common order. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.07.2002, whereby the Additional Collector (I), Jaipur has rejected and has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a khatedar tenant of his agricultural land. To approach his own fields, the petitioner has been using a way, which is recorded as gairmumkin rasta in the revenue record. Because of some encroachment made by the respondent No.2 over the gairmumkin rasta, proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act were initiated by the Tehsilar, Tehsil Bassi. Unfortunately, the Gram Panchayat, Jatwada, allotted a plot of land in favour of the respondent No.2 on 5th April 1999 measuring East-West 8 feet, North-South 10 feet. The petitioner came to know about the said allotment to the respondent No.2 after two years. By that time, the limitation for filing appeal before the Panchayat Samiti had lapsed. The petitioner, therefore, moved a revision petition before the respondent No.1 with the same allegations that the land has been alloted to the respondent No.2 on the way that has been recorded as gainmumkin rasta in the revenue record and the encroachment made by the respondent No.2 on this way has been regularised in an illegal and unauthorized manner. The respondent No.3, in reply to the revision petition filed by the petitioner, wrote a letter to the respondent No.1, wherein he had specifically stated that the earlier Sarpanch had wrongly allotted the land in favour of the respondent No.2 even when he was well aware of the fact the the allotment is going to be made on the way that has been recorded as gairmumkin rasta in the revenue record. The respondent No.3 further stated in his letter that on 26th February, 2001 it was resolved that the proceedings for removing the encroachment made by the respondent No.2 be initiated. In this regard, the Tehsildar, Bassi was also informed to initiate the proceedings against the respondent No.2. The respondent No.3 further stated in his letter that on 26th February, 2001 it was resolved that the proceedings for removing the encroachment made by the respondent No.2 be initiated. In this regard, the Tehsildar, Bassi was also informed to initiate the proceedings against the respondent No.2. But, in the absence of the record and even when the Development Officer and the present Sarpanch have informed that the allotment was made illegally, without adopting the process provided under the Rajasthan Panchyat General Rules, the respondent No.1 has rejected the revision petition of the petitioner vide order dated 31.07.2002. Being aggrieved with the order dated 31.07.2002, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court. 4. Mr. Jayant Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the impugned order has been passed in absence of the record. According to him the 'patta' were issued with regard to a land which was shown as gair-mumkin rasta. Further more, according to him, the Gram Panchayat under Rule 141 of the Raj. Panchayat Rules, 1996 is duty bound to auction the land. Therefore, the issuance of Patta was in violation of Rule 141 of the said Rules. 5. On the other hand, Mr. H.S. Khandelwal, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, has contended that the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are extremely limited. In order to buttress his contention, he has relied upon the case of Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj & Ors. ( (2008) 9 SCC 1 = 2009(1) RLW 172 (SC)). 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj & Ors. ( (2008) 9 SCC 1 ) has held as under :- “Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate Court or inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior Court or Tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts and inferior Tribunals within the limits of law.” A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that whether the 'Patta' has been issued in relation to a gairmumkin rasta land is question of fact. Since the learned Additional Collector has concluded that the 'patta' does not relate to gairmumkin rasta land, under the supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the said decision cannot be set aside. Moreover, the learned Addl. Collector has rightly concluded that the petitioner has taken two contrary stands: on the one hand, he claims that the 'patta' relates to the gairmumkin rasta land, yet on the other hand, he claims that the land should have been auctioned rather than sold to an individual. In these circumstances, there is no perversity and illegality in the impugned order. 7. Hence, these writ petitions are devoid of any merit and are, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.