Law:

Section:

 Crown land----Charagah land exchanged for purpose of consolidation with proprietary land----Collectors order sanctioning exchange administrative-Cannot be made subject of "appeal" or "revision"-Can be scrutinized by Board on simple "applica tion"-[P L D 1950 Ph. (Rev.) 73 rel.].   ORDER   This purports to be a revision petition against the order of the Collector of Shahpur dated the 19th October 1958 sanctioning exchange of charagah land of Chak No. 5-N.B., Tahsil Bhalwal with the respondent-Lambardaris proprietary land fn squares Nos. 3 and 8.   It appears that an application was presented to the Collector on the 1st April 1958 by about 15 Abadkars of this Chak com plaining that the charagah land of their village was scatered in five different squares on three sides of the village, which caused inconvenience to them as well as their cattle. They prayed that the charagah land of the Chak may be consolidated in one compact block by its exchange with proprietary land. The Collector ordered an enquiry and the Tehsildar issued a pro clamation calling upon the residents of the village to file any objections or representations, if they had, to the proposal made in the application. Nobody came forward to object to or contest the joint application of the village Abadkars. In fact it appears that one of the petitioners, Mehdi Hussain, actually appeared before the Tehsildar and stated that he had no objection to the exchange. The Collector then sanctioned the exchange of the charagah land with the proprietary land of the respondent. The change was given effect to in the revenue records and mutation made on the 19th December 1958.   At the very outset a pertinent question has been raised as to whether this petition can at all be treated as one in revision. It is not an application under section 17 of the Colonisation of Government Lands Act because the provisions of this section are wholly restricted to exchanges of tenants holdings with State land and do not apply to exchange of State land with proprietary area. This question once came up before the Financial Commis sioner in 1930 and the case is reported in P L D…