JUDGMENT Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.8.1997, passed by Gram Panchayat Badalwas, the order dated 2.6.1998 passed by Collector Sikar and the order dated 25.1.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue (`the Board' for short), whereby the petitioner was directed to remove the obstacle created in a public way in Khasra No.577, which is under Khatedari of the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that according to revenue record a public way has been shown as existing on the north western side of Khasra No.577. In fact, no public way exists on the south western side of the said Khasra. According to petitioner these facts were available on record but have been ignored by all the three authorities, namely Gram Panchayat, Badalwas, Collector Sikar and the Board. Therefore, in the impugned orders the petitioner has been directed to remove the obstacles which were created by him on the south-west corner of Khasra No.577, although no public way exists in the said portion of the Khasra. 3. A bare perusal of the impugned orders clearly reveals that all the three authorities have noticed revenue record and have also considered “mauka-report” (Local Inspection Report), which clearly reveals that the obstacles were created by the petitioner on a public way on south western side of Khasra No.577. Therefore, all the authorities have directed him to remove the said obstacles. 4. Whether an obstruction exists on a public way on south western part of Khasra No.577 is a question of fact which has been considered in the light of “mauka-report” (Local Inspection Report) and revenue record. The finding on a question of fact cannot be disturbed by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Recently in the case of Shamshad Ahmad vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj ( (2008) 9 SCC 1 = 2009(1) RLW (SC) 172), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 and 227 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 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.” 5. Thus, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited one. Since there is a finding on a questions of fact by three different forums, this court cannot interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merit. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.