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

The petitioners challenged a Tahsildar’s order dated 16 January 2025 attaching the subject property.

The attachment followed action initiated after respondent No. 4, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), addressed a letter concerning arrears allegedly due to respondents 5 and 6; the Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 10 April 2024.

The attachment was executed and possession taken on 21 March 2025, with subsequent steps initiated towards auctioning flats.

The petitioners’ appeal against RERA’s final order was dismissed on 23 August 2025 and, according to respondents 5 and 6, had attained finality.

1. Whether the Tahsildar’s consequential attachment order warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

2. Whether the petitioners could challenge the attachment when the underlying RERA order had attained finality.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

A consequential attachment order cannot be successfully challenged in isolation where the underlying order giving rise to it has attained finality.

The Court noted that the attachment had been executed and further action towards auctioning the flats had been sought.

It also observed that the petitioners had produced no material showing that they had successfully challenged the RERA order, whose appeal had been dismissed and which had attained finality.

In those circumstances, the Court found no basis to interfere with the consequential attachment order.

It left open the petitioners’ ability to challenge the RERA order concerning the property, if otherwise entitled to do so in law.