Short Note : 1. It was an appeal by the appellants who were defendant in a suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiffs for declaration of title, possession and an order of perpetual injunction. Plaintiff's case was, that Ramsingh the husband and father respectively of the plaintiffs, was recorded holder of the disputed lands situated in village Hapakheda. After his death, they became entitled to be recorded as rightful holders but the respondents took unlawful possession of the disputed land. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On an appeal by the plaintiffs, the District Judge allowed the appeal and a conditional decree was passed against the defendant whereby the plaintiffs were granted a declaration of title, possession, etc. unless and until the sale by Ramsingh in favour of the defendants was to be validated by the Collector under section 70 (2) of the M. B Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950. Held: In the judgment under appeal, the learned District Judge has held that though in the sale-deed executed by Ramsingh, the lands were described as situate in village Pankhedi; but in fact the parties to the sale intended that the lands sold by Ramsingh were in Hapakheda of which he was the recorded holder; that when Ramsing sold the lands, the M B Act was in force, that under the provisions of section 70 of the Act the lands could either be sold with the previous sanction of the Collector or if sold without his sanction, the sale had to be validated by him; that in the instant case neither there was the previous sanction of the Collector nor there was any validation by him under sub-section (2) of section 70 of the Act and that despite the repeal of the M B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act and the coming into force of the M. P Land Revenue Code, the sale could not be regarded as valid both on account of there being no sanction of the Collector and there being no validations as required by sub-section (2) of section 70 of the Act and that section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act could not help the purchasers, namely, the appellants in this case. The appellants have now filed certified copies of the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 22-1-1968 and by the Tahsildar on 31-5-1978 indicating that the sale was Validated by the S.D.O. and consequent mutation of the names of the appellants were made On the suit lands in the revenue records The question is as to what is the effect of these orders passed by the S. D. O, and the Tahsiidar, on the validity of the claim made by the appellants on the basis of the sale-deed executed by Ramsingh through whom the respondents claimed title to the suit lands. So far as the provisions of section 70 of the M. P. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act are concerned, the power to accord previous sanction for sale is conferred on the Collector only. Similarly the power to validate a sale made without a prior sanction of the Collector is also conferred under sub-clause (2) of section 70 of the M. B. Act on the Collector only. It has not been shown by the appellants as to in exercise of what authority the S.D.O. validated the salt by the order passed by him on 22-1-1968. On the date this order was passed the Act was repealed and the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 had come into force. There are provisions in the M. P. Land Revenue Code whether the Government is empowered to authorise a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Collector to exercise powers of a Collector but no notification authorising the S.D.O. to exercise the powers of the Collector under section 70 of the Act was shown on behalf of the appellants. In the scheme of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, in section 6, there is no provision for the appointment of the S.D.O. though a provision to that effect has been made in section 11 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Despite the repeal of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act by the M. P. Land Revenue Code, it cannot be said that requirements of section 70 of the Act were not required to be complied with The M. P. Land Revenue Code cannot be said to have a retrospective effect so far as the mandatory requirements of the Act were concerned. In the opinion of this Court; therefore, even if the appellants want to rely on the validation order passed by the S.D.O. they must show that the said order has been passed by that authority only which has been empowered under section (2) of section 70 of the M. B. Act. Nathulal v. Phoolchand, AIR 1970 SC 546 at page 548, para 10, relied on. Case remanded. Appeal allowed.