Judgment :- Sreedharan, J. Legal heirs of deceased first respondent in writ petition No.9452/1988, who were impleaded as additional respondents 5 to 7 in that petition, arc the appellants herein. A learned Single Judge of this Court all owed the Original Petition and directed the revenue authorities to effect physical delivery of possession of the property in dispute to the writ petitioner by judgment dated 30th November 1992. This direction is under challenge. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: One Chellappan Nair, who was a contractor under the Public Works Department, had to pay a sum of Rs.13, 861.28 to the Government as damages. For realizing that amount, Government initiated proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", and attached 6.30 Acres of land comprised in various survey numbers belonging to the defaulter on 2-1-1974. Out of the attached properties, an extent of 2.85 Acres of land comprised in Survey No.290/4 and 290/3-1 of Vilappil Village in Neyyattinkara Taluk was sold in auction on 30-7-1974. Petitioner in the writ petition purchased those properties for an amount of Rs.14, 000/-. The sale in his favour was confirmed and made absolute on 17-3-1976. Certificate of sale was issued to him on 12-5-1981. 3. While the above said proceedings under the Act were pending, first respondent in the writ petition took various steps under the Kerala Land Reforms Act to establish her rights over 1.5 Acres of land out of the properties sold in public auction. At first she filed petition under S.72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as O.A.145/1972 before the Land Tribunal, Neyyattinkara for assignment of landlord's right in respect of 1.5 Acres in Survey No.290/4 of Vilappil Village. Land Tribunal dismissed that application by order dated 27-3-1975. That order was not challenged in appeal and it has become final. Thereafter first respondent in the writ petition filed application under S.29 of the Land Reforms Act for preparation of record of rights. Her contention in that proceeding was that she was holding the properly as per lease and it is separated by well-built boundaries. That order was not challenged in appeal and it has become final. Thereafter first respondent in the writ petition filed application under S.29 of the Land Reforms Act for preparation of record of rights. Her contention in that proceeding was that she was holding the properly as per lease and it is separated by well-built boundaries. Tahsildar, after due enquiries, came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to show that the said properly is in her possession as alleged by her and that the entire area lies in one compact plot except the premises of the house in which she resides. Consequently it was found that she is entitled to claim rights as a kudikidappukari and no further right in the properly. This finding entered by the Tahsildar was challenged in appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer without any success. First respondent in the write petition challenged the orders of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer before this Court in O.P.802/1980. This Court by judgment dated 25-11-1980 negatived her contention holding that she has actually no right to get any record of rights prepared in view of the decision in O.A.145/1972. 4. Pursuant to the sale certificate dated 12-5-1981 issued under S.56 of the Act, Tahsildar look steps for effecting delivery of property to the auction purchaser. Thereupon first respondent in the writ petition filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue on 7-1-1982 contending that she was in possession of 1.5 Acres under oral lease and that the sale was held in violation of the mandatory provisions contained in the Act. Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition by Exhibit P6 order dated 13-12-1983. Aggrieved by that order, first respondent in the writ petition moved a revision petition before the Government invoking the provisions contained in S.83(2) of the Act. Government after examining the entire records dismissed that revision petition by Exhibit P7 order dated 17.9.1985. Dissatisfied with that, she moved a second revision before the Government to set aside the sale. By Exhibit P10 order dated 27-10-1988, Government allowed her petition and set aside the entire proceedings taken by the revenue authorities for the sale of the properties of the defaulter. Consequently the sale, which looks place on 30-7-1974, was avoided. Aggrieved by this order, the auction purchaser filed the write petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 5. By Exhibit P10 order dated 27-10-1988, Government allowed her petition and set aside the entire proceedings taken by the revenue authorities for the sale of the properties of the defaulter. Consequently the sale, which looks place on 30-7-1974, was avoided. Aggrieved by this order, the auction purchaser filed the write petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 5. First respondent in the writ petition challenged the revenue sale on the ground that she is a tenant in respect of 1.5 Acres of land comprised in Survey No.290/4 of Vilappil Village and that the revenue sale was vitiated by procedural irregularities. This contention was elaborately considered by the Revenue Board while passing Exhibit P6 order dismissing her revision petition. Revenue Board came to the conclusion that she has no right of tenancy over the land sold in revenue auction, that she is only a kudikidappukari in the property; and that there was no irregularity in the conduct of the sale of the property. It entered a specific finding that the records before the Board showed that notice of attachment and the sale notice were published in the properly and that she being a person residing in the property, cannot be presumed to have been unaware of the steps taken under the Act. When this order of the Board was taken in revision before the Government, Government by Exhibit P7 order dated 17-9-1985 found that she cannot claim any right as tenant; that she is only a kudikidappukari; and that there is no reason for setting aside the sale. The finding entered by the Government regarding the conduct of sale is in the following terms: - "As regards the action of the Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara and District Collector, Trivandrum with respect to the sale of the property and confirmation of the sale, Government do not find any reason to interfere with their proceedings as there was no irregularity either in the sale or confirmation of the sale. Since the auction is found to be in order, the property has to be delivered to the auction purchaser". It was after this order, first respondent in the writ petition moved the Government a second time. 0n that petition, Government passed Exhibit P1O order setting aside the sale which was held on 30-7-1974. 6. Since the auction is found to be in order, the property has to be delivered to the auction purchaser". It was after this order, first respondent in the writ petition moved the Government a second time. 0n that petition, Government passed Exhibit P1O order setting aside the sale which was held on 30-7-1974. 6. S.83(2) of the Act confers power on the Government either suo motu or on application by any person interested, to call for the records of any proceedings taken by the Board of Revenue under sub-s.(1) of S.83 and to pass such orders as they think fit in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This power of revision is in relation to the orders passed by the Board of Revenue. In exercise of this power, at the instance of the first respondent in the writ petition, Government passed Exhibit P7 order confirming the order passed by the Board of Revenue. Thereafter Government is not having any jurisdiction or authority to exercise a power of revision against its own order. So, the source of power for passing Exhibit P10 order cannot be traced to any provision contained in the Act. When Government passed Exhibit P7 order on 17-9-1985, it exhausted its revisional power under S.83(2) of the Act The Act does not confer any revisional power on the Government to review its own orders. Government has no inherent power to review its order either. Nor has it got any power under the Act to review an order passed by it. There is no provision in the Act conferring power of review on any of the authorities having jurisdiction to confirm or set aside an auction sale. The proposition that the power of review of prior decisions does not exist where it has not been expressly conferred was not disputed before us either. according/ to the learned counsel representing the appellants, the Government was exercising! an inherent power of review to rectify a mistake. This argument, we are afraid, cannot hold good because a power of review can be resorted to only in case of glaring omissions, patent mistakes or like grave errors and not for re-hearing the case in its entirety. Government was not rectifying any accidental slip or error in the previous order. The correctness of the previous order was enquired into and an entirely different conclusion was arrived at. Government was not rectifying any accidental slip or error in the previous order. The correctness of the previous order was enquired into and an entirely different conclusion was arrived at. Such a power of review is not inherent with the Government. It is also well settled proposition of law that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication (vide P.N. Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji (AIR 1970 S.C. 1273), No provision of the Act was brought to our notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had the power to review its own order. Therefore we come to the conclusion that Exhibit P10 orders dated 27-10-1988 was passed by the Government without jurisdiction. We are of the view that the Government was not correcting any inadvertent error That crept in while passing the earlier order. Therefore, it is only to be set aside. We do so. 7. On merits also, the first respondent in the writ petition is not entitled to Succeed. Her claim for tenancy was turned down by the Land Tribunal way back on 27-3-1975, in her application under. S.29 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Tahsildar found that she had no possession over property and that she was only a kudikidappukari. When that matter came up before this Court in 0.P.802/1980, this Court also found that she had no right to gel the record of rights in view of the decision in O.A. 145/1972. That was the conclusion reached by the Board of Revenue and the Government in Exhibits P6 and P7 orders respectively. Therefore, we hold that neither the first respondent in the write petition nor her legal heirs are entitled to put forward a claim of lease-hold interest or tenancy over 1.50 Acres of land comprised in Survey No.290/4 of Vilappil Village. 8. On the question of irregularity in the conduct of the revenue sale also first respondent in the writ petition is not entitled to succeed. In Exhibit P6 order, the Board of Revenue came to the conclusion: - "Records before the Board show that the notice of attachment and the sale notice were published in the property". 8. On the question of irregularity in the conduct of the revenue sale also first respondent in the writ petition is not entitled to succeed. In Exhibit P6 order, the Board of Revenue came to the conclusion: - "Records before the Board show that the notice of attachment and the sale notice were published in the property". Government, after examining the entire issue while passing Exhibit P7 order, decided to confirm the sale since they could not find any reason to interfere with the proceedings at there was no irregularity either in the sale or confirmation of the sale. In view of these findings arrived at by the Board of Revenue and the Government, we hold that the revenue sale is also not liable to be set aside. 9. From the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Board of Revenue, it is clearly established that first respondent in the writ petition was a kudikidappukari in the property. That kudikidappu right has now devolved on her legal heirs, the appellants in this writ appeal. The said kudikidappu right cannot be defeated. It, therefore, follows that the properties sold in revenue auction on 30-7-1974 are to be delivered to the auction purchaser subject to kudikidappu right of the first respondent in the writ petition, which has now devolved on the appellants herein. We order that the said right should be protected. With this observation, writ appeal is dismissed.