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

Respondent No. 4’s order concerning amounts due to respondent No. 5 led to action by the revenue authorities.

The Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 10 April 2024, and the Tahsildar subsequently issued the impugned attachment order on 16 January 2025.

The attachment was executed and possession of the subject land was taken on 21 March 2025; further steps toward auctioning flats were also initiated

The petitioners challenged the Tahsildar’s attachment order under Articles 226 and 227.

Respondent No. 5 submitted that the petitioners’ appeal against respondent No. 4’s original order had been dismissed on 23 August 2025 and that the order had attained finality

1. Whether the petitioners could challenge the Tahsildar’s consequential attachment order when the underlying order of respondent No. 4 had attained finality

2. Whether the attachment order warranted interference in the writ petition

The Court cited no specific statutory provision, precedent, or separately articulated legal test.

Its reasoning applied the principle that, where an underlying order has attained finality, a party cannot at that stage challenge a consequential attachment order as bad in law

The Court noted that the attachment had been executed and that the authorities had proceeded with steps toward auctioning the flats

It also accepted that the petitioners had not produced material showing a challenge to respondent No. 4’s order, which had attained finality following dismissal of their appeal

In those circumstances, the petitioners could not use the writ petition to challenge the consequential attachment order, and the Court found no ground for interference

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