JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 10.3.2008 issued by the first respondent District Revenue Officer-cum-Additional Executive Magistrate, Erode (wrongly described as Judicial Magistrate by the petitioner in the cause title). By the impugned order, the District Revenue Officer had allowed the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent and confirmed the order of the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar and reversed the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode and confirmed the patta transfer made by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, dated 10.6.2006. The petitioner was informed that if she so desires, she can file a further appeal to the Principal Commissioner for Revenue Administration and Disaster Management. The petitioner has not chosen to go before the further appellate authority, but has filed the present writ petition contending that there is no other alternate effective or efficacious remedy. 2. Notice of motion was ordered on the writ petition on 16.2.2009. Subsequently, the matter was admitted on 3.1.2011. Pending the writ petition, no interim order was passed though a stay application was filed. On notice from this court, the fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 26.2.2010. 3. It is seen from the records that the fourth respondent was the bona fide purchaser of the property situated in S.Nos.68/1 and 691/ in Sarkar Periyapalayam village, Perundurai Taluk on 3.4.2006 for a valuable consideration of Rs.33,10,000/- and the same was registered with the Sub Registrar's office at Uttukkuli as document No.783 of 2006. The purchase was made from one K.Duraisamy, who had purchased the property in a public auction held on 08.12.2005 from the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore in R.P.No.22/2005 in DRC No.19/2005. It so happened that the said Duraisamy was the tenant on the said property. After purchasing the property from the auction purchaser and after taking possession, the fourth respondent came to know that the property was mortgaged with Dhanalakshmi Bank by M/s.Maker Exports. The writ petitioner had given the property as a collateral security and signed the loan documents. As the loan amounts were not paid, the creditor bank has filed O.A.No.277 of 2000 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore for recovering a sum of Rs.1,15,81,537/-. The said OA was ordered in favour of the bank and recovery proceedings were initiated in R.P.No.22 of 2005. As the loan amounts were not paid, the creditor bank has filed O.A.No.277 of 2000 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore for recovering a sum of Rs.1,15,81,537/-. The said OA was ordered in favour of the bank and recovery proceedings were initiated in R.P.No.22 of 2005. After issuing the demand notice to the petitioner and after paper publication, an auction was conducted on 08.12.2005. The said K.Duraisamy was the highest bidder. Therefore, the auction was confirmed in his favour and a sale certificate was also issued on the same cay, i.e., 08.02.2006. The possession was taken over on 20.2.2006. The writ petitioner had also participated in the proceedings by engaging her counsel. 4. Since the petitioner was giving problem to the fourth respondent, he had filed a suit in O.S.No.135 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif, Perundurai for permanent injunction. In I.A.No.444 of 2006, the learned District Munsif had granted ex parte interim injunction. When the petitioner had challenged the said injunction in C.R.P.(PD) No.1452 of 2006, the same was dismissed on 13.12.2006 confirming the order of injunction. The petitioner even had preferred SLP(C)No.390 of 2007. That was also dismissed. Thus, as on date, the interim order granted by the civil court has become final. The petitioner further filed an appeal in A.P.No.4 of 2006 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore against the confirmation of sale in R.P.No.22 of 2005 and had obtained an interim stay. Subsequently, a division bench of this court had suspended the said order of interim stay in M.P.No.3 of 2006 in W.P.No.17940 of 2006. The SLP preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. The petitioner once again claiming that the mortgage was done without her knowledge has filed I.A.Nos.505 and 506 of 2006 in T.A.No.729 of 2002, seeking to set aside the original ex parte order. That was also disbelieved by the DRT and that her applications were dismissed on 04.12.2006. Thereafter, the fourth respondent filed an application for transfer of patta on the basis of court auction purchaser of the property. The Tahsildar had granted transfer of patta. The petitioner thereafter had moved the second respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode and the order of the Tahsildar was reversed. The fourth respondent has filed a revision before the District Revenue Officer, Erode and that the DRO had restored the order of transfer of patta in favour of the fourth respondent. 5. The Tahsildar had granted transfer of patta. The petitioner thereafter had moved the second respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode and the order of the Tahsildar was reversed. The fourth respondent has filed a revision before the District Revenue Officer, Erode and that the DRO had restored the order of transfer of patta in favour of the fourth respondent. 5. It is stated by the fourth respondent in his counter affidavit, dated 26.2.2010 that under Revenue Board Standing Order 31(2) and 31(4), he is entitled for patta transfer. As long as the court auction is not held to be void, he is entitled to enjoy the property without any disturbance. Even the petitioner's appeal before the second respondent was time barred, yet it was also entertained by the second respondent without any justification. The first respondent on revision filed by the petitioner made a detailed examination of records and confirmed the order passed by the original authority. 6. The counsel for the fourth respondent submitted for the perusal of this court a judgment of the Supreme Court in Janatha Textiles and others Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and another reported in 2009-2-L.W. 108 = (2008) 12 SCC 582 for contending that the third party auction purchaser's interest in the auctioned property continues to be protected notwithstanding that the underlying decree was subsequently set aside or otherwise. The Supreme Court made a distinction between the stranger who is a bona fide purchaser of the property at an auction sale and a decree holder purchaser at a court auction. A reference was made to the following paragraphs found in paragraphs 18 and 20, which reads as follows: “18. It is an established principle of law that in a third party auction-purchaser's interest in the auctioned property continues to be protected notwithstanding that the underlying decree is subsequently set aside or otherwise. This principle has been stated and reaffirmed in a number of judicial pronouncements by the Privy Council and this Court. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions: 20. Law makes a clear distinction between a stranger who is a bona fide purchaser of the property at an auction-sale and a decree-holder purchaser at a court auction. The strangers to the decree are afforded protection by the court because they are not connected with the decree. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions: 20. Law makes a clear distinction between a stranger who is a bona fide purchaser of the property at an auction-sale and a decree-holder purchaser at a court auction. The strangers to the decree are afforded protection by the court because they are not connected with the decree. Unless the protection is extended to them the court sales would not fetch market value or fair price of the property.” 7. In the present case, since the fourth respondent is also having an injunction in his favour, the first respondent was also bound to give effect to the order of the civil court. Ultimately if the petitioner succeeds, he is also bound to reverse the patta granted in favour of the fourth respondent. Since the petitioner has not filed any appeal to the Principal Commissioner for Revenue Administration, but came to this court directly and also this court, having found that there are no infirmities in the order passed by the first respondent, is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.