A consequential attachment cannot be challenged after the underlying order attains finality.

The petitioners challenged the Tahsildar’s order dated 16 January 2025 attaching property connected with the project.

The attachment was executed on 21 March 2025, and the Tahsildar later sought further action towards auctioning flats.

The respondents submitted that the petitioners’ appeal against the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority’s underlying order had been dismissed on 23 August 2025 and that the order had attained finality.

The petitioners sought to quash the attachment order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Tahsildar’s attachment order warranted interference in the petitioners’ writ petition

2. Whether the petitioners could challenge the consequential attachment order after the underlying order of respondent No. 4 had attained finality

The petition was considered under the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that a consequential attachment order could not be challenged at this stage where the underlying order had attained finality and the petitioners had produced no material showing that they had challenged that underlying order.

The judgment cites no specific statute or precedent.

The Court noted that the attachment had been executed and that steps had been initiated towards auctioning the flats.

It also accepted the respondents’ submission that the appeal challenging respondent No. 4’s underlying order had been dismissed and that the order had attained finality; the petitioners had produced no material showing otherwise.

In those circumstances, the Court declined to interfere with the consequential attachment order.

It left open the petitioners’ right to challenge respondent No. 4’s order concerning the property, if entitled to do so in law.