ORDER Singh, J. l. This petition under Article 226 of the constitution arises on the following facts. Village Shankar Nagar in Raipur district was a proprietary village, its proprietor being a temple, Shri Ramchandra Swami Mandir. One Radheshyam Dube acting as the sarbarkar of the temple transferred 70.27 acres of land of the village on permanent lease to the petitioner Govind Prasad by two registered lease deeds executed on 28th and 29th March 1951 for a consideration of Rs. 6,800. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1951 came into force on 26th January, 1951 and the proprietary rights in the village were abolished from 31st March 1951 which was notified as the date of vesting. By sub-section (1), section 6 of the Act all transfers made by proprietors after 16th March, 1950 became void from the date of vesting. Jurisdiction was, however, conferred by sub-section (2) on the Deputy Commissioner to declare that a transfer shall not be void if he was satisfied that it was made in good faith and in ordinary course of village management. On 20th January 1954 the petitioner made an application under section 6 (2) for validation of the lease made in his favour. This application was ultimately allowed by the Deputy Commissioner on 14th May 1957 and the leases were declared to be valid. The Collector, Raipur by his order dated 28th March, 1961, reviewed the order of the Deputy Commissioner and set it aside. The result was that the leases in favour of the petitioner became void under section 6 (1) of the Act. The power of review was exercised under Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue but, the appeals were dismissed and the order of the Collector was confirmed. The petitioner then filed this petition for quashing the orders of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. 2. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no power to review an order passed under section 6 (2) of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act and, therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed on 14th May, 1957 validating the leases was not open to review. 2. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no power to review an order passed under section 6 (2) of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act and, therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed on 14th May, 1957 validating the leases was not open to review. It is pointed out that section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 which provides for review of orders passed by revenue officers had no application as the order of the Deputy Commissioner was passed in 1957 before the Code came into force. 3. It is necessary first to notice the relevant statutory provisions. Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950 reads as follows: "(1) Except as provided in sub-section (2), the transfer of any right in the property which is liable to vest in the State under this Act made by the proprietor at any time after the 16th March, 1950 shall, as from the date of vesting, be void. (2) Where on the application of the transferor or the transferee, the Collector is satisfied that any transfer of property referred to in sub-section (1) was made by a proprietor in good faith and in the ordinary course of village management, he may declare that the transfer shall not be void after the date of vesting." The revenue officers now known as Collectors were previously designated as Deputy Commissioners in the Mahakoshal region. Uniformity was brought about by para. 4-A of the Madhya Pradesh Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956 (introduced by an amendment in 1957) and the word 'Collector' was substituted in all enactments, including the Abolition Act, for the expression Deputy Commissioner. The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code of 1959 came into force from 1st October, 1959. Section 51 of the Code which provides for review reads as follows: "51 (1) The Board and every Revenue Officer may, either on its/his own motion or on the application of any party interested, review any order passed by itself/himself or by any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit. (2) No order shall be reviewed except on the grounds provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). (2) No order shall be reviewed except on the grounds provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). (3) For the purposes of this section the Collector shall be deemed to be the successor in office of any Revenue Officer who has left the district or who has ceased to exercise powers as a Revenue Officer and to whom there is no successor in the district." This section was amended in 1964, but as the order in review was passed in 1961, the amendment is not relevant for the purpose of this petition. This section occurs in Chapter V of the Code and to understand its real import the following two sections from the same Chapter have also to be noticed: "Section 55. For avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that save as otherwise expressly provided in this Code, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to- (a) all orders passed by any Revenue Officer before the date of coming into force of this Code and against which no appeal or revision proceedings are pending before such date: and (b) all proceedings before Revenue Officers, notwithstanding that they were instituted or commenced or arose out of proceeding instituted or commenced before the coming into force of this Code. Section 56. In this Chapter the expression "order" means the formal expression of the decision given by the Board or a Revenue Officer in respect of any matter in the exercise of its/his powers under this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force." 4. We will assume in favour of the petitioner that the Madhya Pradesh Abolition Act does not provide for review of orders passed under section 6 (2). It is also true that a power of review does not exist unless it is conferred by statute and ordinarily a statute conferring such a power will not apply to orders previously made. But Legislature is competent to affect the finality of orders by making retrospective provision for review and if that is done either in express terms or by necessary implication the objection against retrospective construction cannot prevail. The question then is of construction of sections 51, 55 and 56 of the Code which have already been quoted. But Legislature is competent to affect the finality of orders by making retrospective provision for review and if that is done either in express terms or by necessary implication the objection against retrospective construction cannot prevail. The question then is of construction of sections 51, 55 and 56 of the Code which have already been quoted. Section 51 confers a power of review on every Revenue Officer to review "any order passed by himself or by any of his predecessors in office." The Collector is a Revenue Officer and the Deputy Commissioner was his predecessor in office. The word 'order' is defined in section 56 to include orders passed under any other law. Section 55 makes the provision of Chapter V. which contains section 51, also to apply "to all orders passed before the date of coming into force of the Code." This section clearly makes the power of review conferred by section 51 retrospective and read along with the definition of "order" in section 56, the power is available in respect of all orders made by any Revenue Officer under any law for the time being in force. The definition of 'order' as given in section 56 applies to the whole of the Chapter and, therefore, that definition has to be read for construing the word 'order' both in sections 51 and 55. Construed in that way the power conferred by section 51 can be exercised to review an order made under section 6 (2) of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950 even though the order was made before coming into force of the Code of 1959. In our opinion, the Collector was competent to review the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 5. Next it is urged that the power of review conferred by section 51 of the Code is restricted by the 2nd clause of that section to the ground mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the Collector reviewed the previous order without there being any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, acted in excess of jurisdiction. It has not been disputed that the Collector in review restricted himself to that record which was before the Deputy Commissioner. It has not been disputed that the Collector in review restricted himself to that record which was before the Deputy Commissioner. One of the grounds that the Collector gave for review was that in the previous order the Deputy Commissioner erroneously assumed that Radheshyam Dube who granted the leases to the petitioner as a Sarbarkar had authority to do so on behalf of the temple. The Collector pointed out that the temple was under the control of a committee of management appointed under a scheme sanctioned in Civil Suit No. 7 of 1923 decided by Additional District Judge, Raipur on 23rd April 1926, that the sarbarkar, though having power of management, acted under the control and supervision of the committee as a paid employee of the temple and that he had no power to alienate the properties of the temple. The correctness of this finding of the Collector which was also approved by the Board of Revenue has not been challenged before us by the petitioner. Accepting that the Sarbarkar had no authority to make any transfer on behalf of the temple the Deputy Commissioner clearly committed an error apparent on face of the record in validating the leases under section 6 (2) of the Act. The leases were executed one day before the date of vesting and were prima facie open to suspicion. It seems that the Deputy Commissioner himself had not made any investigation and had relied upon the investigation of his subordinate, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raipur, whose report he accepted without applying his mind. In our opinion, the Collector was justified in reviewing the order of the Deputy Commissioner and in holding that there was sufficient reason, analogous to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, to enable him to review. 6. This petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The outstanding amount of security, if any, will be refunded to the petitioner. Counsel's fee Rs. 150, if certified.