Karnataka High Court Upholds Unishire Property Attachment, Says Final K-RERA Order Can't Be Reopened

The Karnataka High Court on 6 October held that a developer cannot challenge a consequential property attachment after its appeal against the underlying Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) order has been dismissed and the order has attained finality.

Justice E.S. Indiresh dismissed Unishire Promoters Private Limited's writ petition and upheld the attachment of its property in Bengaluru to recover unpaid dues owed to a homebuyer. The Bench observed:

“In that view of the matter, as the petitioners herein have not produced any material as to challenge the order passed by respondent No.4 and as the said order has attained finality the finality on 23.08.2025 as argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, that the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the original order passed by respondent No.4, the petitioners cannot, at this stage, challenge the consequential order of attachment, as bad in law.”

The dispute arose after Unishire Promoters failed to pay the arrears owed to homebuyer Janaki Ramakrishnan under a K-RERA order. On 3 February 2024, K-RERA wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, regarding recovery of the dues.

On 10 April 2024, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order, and the Yelahanka Tahsildar subsequently issued an attachment order against the developer's property on 16 January 2025.

Unishire Promoters and three others approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the attachment and proposed sale of the entire project were unlawful and that the Tahsildar lacked grounds to issue the attachment order.

The homebuyer's counsel submitted that the authorities had executed the attachment following a spot inspection and taken possession of the land on 21 March 2025. Counsel further informed the Court that the developer's appeal against the original K-RERA order had been dismissed on 23 August 2025.

Subsequently, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar requested an auction of the property through a letter dated 19 September 2025. On 16 March 2026, the Tahsildar wrote to the Assistant Revenue Officer of the Greater Bengaluru Authority, Byatarayanapura Ward, seeking further action to auction the flats covered by the sale agreement. The State Government defended the attachment order.

The Court noted that the developer had not produced any material showing a successful challenge to the underlying K-RERA order, which had attained finality after the dismissal of its appeal. It held that Unishire Promoters could not challenge the consequential attachment as unlawful at that stage.

Further, the Bench clarified that the developers could still challenge the K-RERA order concerning the property if otherwise entitled to do so under law.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Appearances for petitioners (Unishire Promoters Private Limited & Others): Advocate G.S. Venkat Subba Rao.

Appearances for respondents (State of Karnataka and Revenue Authorities): Additional Government Advocates Shamanth Naik and Aditya Diwakara.

Appearances for respondent (Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority): Advocate Gowthamdev C. Ullal.

Appearances for respondent (Homebuyer): Advocate G. Udhayakumar.