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

The petitioners challenged the Tahsildar’s order dated 16 January 2025 attaching property in connection with amounts allegedly due to respondents 5 and 6, contending that attachment and sale of the entire project were unlawful and unsupported.

The respondents stated that the attachment was executed and possession taken on 21 March 2025, and that steps had been sought to auction the relevant flats.

They also submitted that the petitioners’ appeal against the order of respondent 4, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, had been dismissed on 23 August 2025 and that the order had attained finality.

The Court noted that the Deputy Commissioner had issued an order on 10 April 2024 following a communication from respondent 4 concerning the petitioners’ failure to pay the arrears.

1. Whether the Tahsildar’s order dated 16 January 2025 attaching the property warranted interference in the petitioners’ writ petition.

2. Whether the petitioners could challenge the consequential attachment order when the underlying order of respondent 4 had attained finality.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the High Court’s writ and supervisory jurisdiction.

The Court applied the principle that a consequential attachment order could not, in the circumstances presented, be challenged as unlawful where the underlying order had attained finality and the petitioners had produced no material showing that they had challenged that order.

The Court noted that the attachment had been executed, possession taken, and further action toward auction sought.

It also accepted the respondents’ submission that the appeal against respondent 4’s order had been dismissed and that the order had attained finality; the petitioners had produced no material showing a challenge to that order.

In those circumstances, the Court held that the petitioners could not obtain interference with the consequential attachment order and found no ground to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

It left open the petitioners’ liberty to challenge respondent 4’s order concerning the property, if otherwise entitled to do so in law.