This revision arises out of the following circumstances. Parma put up an application on 9.1.1956 before the Collector Ganganagar for exchange of land included in Chak No. 29 M.L. Murabba Nos. 19, 6 and 17 with that of Murabba No. 62 in the same chak on the ground that land which he wanted to give in exchange was not capable of canal irrigation. This application was forwarded to the Tehsildar on that very day The Tehsildar after necessary enquiry came to the conclusion that exchange as prayed for by Parma be sanctioned and for warded the papers to the S.D.O. who in turn forwarded them to the Collector Ganganagar. The Collector also agreed with this recommendation on 6.2.1956 and forwarded the papers to the Commissioner who returned them with the remarks that Jasia had raised objections before him to this exchange on the ground that he had been cultivating the land since 1952, and that as the ground related to irrigation facilities it was essential that a reference be made to the Irrigation Department. In compliance with this decision of the Commissioner the matter was referred to the Superintending Engineer who opined that some of the qillas of the land in dispute had become uncommanded because of the negligence of the owner. The Collector Ganganager again forwarded the papers to the Commissioner on 22.5.1956. Exchange was again recommended and some arguments were also advanced for discarding the opinion of the Superintending Engineer and for exonerating Parma Ram from all responsibilities in that behalf. The Com-missioner again returned the papers back on 26.5.956 and directed that the objections of Jaisa had not been fully enquired into and hence the case could not be decided finally till that was done. Against this order a review petition was filed before the Commissioner by Parma Ram on 8-6 1956 which was decided by the learned Commissioner on 3.12.1957 This decision forms the subject matter of this revision. This decision directs the Collector to start proceedings on an application to be filed with due authority and to decide the same in conformity with the instructions of the former Bikaner State dated 11.12.1942 dealing with the cases of exchange of land. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. This decision directs the Collector to start proceedings on an application to be filed with due authority and to decide the same in conformity with the instructions of the former Bikaner State dated 11.12.1942 dealing with the cases of exchange of land. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. As pointed out above this application for exchange was presented on 7.1.1956 i.e. after the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The exchange of tenancies is a matter dealt with in secs. 48 to 52 of the Act. Sec. 48 provides that tenants of the same class may exchange land which they hold from the same land holders with the written consent of such a land holder and in case of different land holders with the written consent of such different land holders It is also provided therein that a land holder may in agreement with a tenant give him such land in exchange for that which is included in his holding. Sec. 49 deals with exchange for consolidation purposes. Sec. 49 (a) lays down a special provision of exchange by members of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribes. The rights accruing to tenants on exchange are laid down in sec. 50. Sec. 51 deals with rights in lands allotted in exchange for other lands. Sec. 52 is for making appropriate entries in the Record of Rights consequent to exchanges under sec. 48 or 49. Thus exchange of tenancies is a subject dealt within the Act. Sec. 3(i)(b). of the Act lays down that any laws in force in any of the convenating States in so far as such laws are covered by or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall stand repealed on the enforcement of the Raj. Tenancy Act. Exchange Rules of the former Bikaner State dated 11.12.1944 are nothing but instructions for dealing with cases of exchange of lands and must stand repealed on the enforcement of the Raj. Tenancy Act. In view of this finding it is unnecessary to examine as to whether the exchange demanded by Parma Ram could have been granted under these instructions or not. Tenancy Act. In view of this finding it is unnecessary to examine as to whether the exchange demanded by Parma Ram could have been granted under these instructions or not. However, we may point out that para 3 of these instructions clearly lays down that no exchange will be allowed on the ground of defective command until the Irrigation Department has declared the land in question uncommanded and it is found that the applicant has made genuine efforts to irrigate the same. In the present case it was reported by the Irrigation Department that the owner was to be blamed for the area going out of the command. It is highly doubtful, therefore, if this request for exchange could have been entertained under these Rules. However, in view of the finding that with the enforcement of the Raj. Tenancy Act these Rules or instructions stand repealed, it is unnecessary to dilate upon this point any further. The question of exchange of tenancies is to be covered by sec. 48 of the Raj. Tenancy Act. This case is evidently not governed by this sec. In the first place the tenants are not of the same category, secondly there is no agreement between them upon the question of exchange, thirdly the land in dispute is in possession of a temporary cultivator who is entitled to continue in possession. The person seeking exchange has considerable areas elsewhere There thus seems to be no point in pursuing this case any further We therefore allow this revision, set aside the orders of the lower courts and direct that the application put up by Parma Ram for exchange of land shall stand rejected throughout.