Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition arises from a proceeding with regard to the grant of permission for sale of a piece of land belonging to a Math by the Consolidation authorities. 3. On an application made by the petitioners and their proposed vendor the Consolidation Officer granted permission for sale. Respondent no.6 filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer granting permission for sale of the land. The appeal was dismissed by the Dy. Director Consolidation. Against the order of the Dy. Director he came in revision before the Director Consolidation. At the stage of revision it came to light that the office of the Mahant of the Math to which the land belonged was the subject matter of suit at Faizabad between someone claiming to be the Chela of the erstwhile Mahant and the proposed vendor of the petitioners. That suit was decreed exparte in favour of the plaintiff and against the proposed vendor of the petitioners. In light of the decree passed by the Faizabad court the Joint Director, Consolidation allowed the revision and rejected the petitioners application for sale of the land. It is stated that later on the petitioners proposed vendor filed a petition for recall of the exparte decree and the matter was finally compromised. In terms of the settlement the petitioners proposed vendor was recognized as the Chela of deceased Mahant. A review petition was then filed before the Director to recall the earlier order passed in the revision. The Principal, Consolidation Training Centre rejected the review petition on the ground that he had no statutory power of review. This writ petition is filed challenging that order. 4. On hearing Mr. Singh and on going through the materials on record, I am satisfied that the Director took the correct view. In the absence of any provision in the Act, any petition for review was not maintainable and he rightly rejected the review petition. 5. It may also be noted here that the Director Consolidation had raised another basic objection to the sale of the land. He had observed, and very rightly so, that since the land admittedly belonged to a Math it could not be transferred by way of sale etc. without prior permission of the Bihar Religious Trust Board. 6. 5. It may also be noted here that the Director Consolidation had raised another basic objection to the sale of the land. He had observed, and very rightly so, that since the land admittedly belonged to a Math it could not be transferred by way of sale etc. without prior permission of the Bihar Religious Trust Board. 6. No relief can, therefore, be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. If they are still left with any grievance(s) they may seek their relief(s) before the Bihar State Religious Trust Board or before any other statutory forum, in accordance with law. 7. This writ petition is dismissed.