Part 1
Narrative — read top to bottom for the full picture
§1
Land Title
F — Fundamentals
A five-parcel hybrid sold as uniform freehold
The land is a hybrid: 56% freehold, 44% BMC municipal leasehold, spread across five parcels — yet the marketing implies a uniform premium freehold throughout. The split is not cosmetic: Tower 2 sits on freehold (clean, mortgageable) while Tower 1 sits on leasehold / BMC Exchange Lands with mortgage-impaired title — and both towers are priced identically. The M.T. Miskita & Co. title report (Format A, Oct 2025) documents the hybrid tenure, two active Bombay HC litigations, and a missing sub-lease link on the Exchange Lands. A ₹445 Cr Beacon NCD charge sits ahead of every buyer's title. Disclosure status: concealed.
CS Plot ReferenceResidential CS 144(pt), 4/71(pt), 1/145(pt), 1/284; hotel CS 109(pt); retail CS 2/71 — Lower Parel
Plot Area16,988 sqm RERA plot
Ownership TypeHybrid — 56% freehold / 44% BMC leasehold (5 parcels)
Tower SplitTower 2 freehold (mortgageable) · Tower 1 leasehold / Exchange Lands (impaired) — undisclosed
First Leasehold ExpiryNov 2048 — 16yr residue at possession, below 30yr mortgage threshold
Title ReportM.T. Miskita & Co. — Format A 30 Oct 2025; hybrid tenure, 2 HC litigations
Active LitigationWP 10572/2014 · PIL 15884/2022 · WP 1251/2014 · Koita ROW — all active
Encumbrance₹445 Cr Beacon NCDs — first-ranking charge, Sale Agreement Cl 28.2
§2
Compound Layout
Compound Density
F
L
Marketing presents Raaya as a low-density residential sanctuary. The registered Sale Agreement tells a different story: alongside the two sale towers (Buildings 1 & 2) sits Building No.3 — an up-to-75-floor 5-star hotel + retail block, named in Recital J-iv yet absent from the Second Schedule, the project description, and all marketing. Nine coordinated Sale Agreement clauses (J-i, J-iv, J-v, K, O, Y, 4.2, 13.4, 19.39) build the hotel into the buyers' compound while contractually erasing their right to object — buyers pre-consent (K), the Promoter retains the hotel in perpetuity (O), buyers have zero rights over it (Y), and all three buildings share basements (J-v). Buildings 1+2 footprint is only 17.8% of the compound; 38–53% of the buildable Floor Space Index (FSI) is invisible in the project description buyers sign. Compound Density (IPD) is graded Critical.
§3
FSI · Floor Count · On-Time Delivery Risk
F — Fundamentals
Marketed Floor Count75 floors
Sale Agreement Second Schedule75 floors — floors 51–75 no RERA, no completion protection
RERA Registered50 habitable floors per tower
Approved & Under Construction50 floors — CC of 4 Apr 2025, now lapsed
Floor Count Gap25 unregistered floors per tower — most concerning in our analysis
Contingent FSIFloors 51–75 on unconfirmed contingent FSI; permanent FSI waiver to Promoter (Sale Agreement 4.1/4.2/xii)
CC Status at AnalysisIssued 4 Apr 2025 (50F only) · lapsed 3 Apr 2026 · Sale Agreement executed 22 May 2026
RERA InterfaceFAILING — Tower 1 carries Tower 2's old layouts; Tower 2 stale 11mo; plans off-portal
§4
View at Handover
All assessments at delivery date — not current state
V — Value
Worli View-Corridor — Runwal Raaya & the Pipeline at Handover
Inline · full corridor · subject pin pulses
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
Development Pipeline — A through M · ● affects Runwal Raaya
A Siddharth Nagar Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) — 80F+ residential, finalising
B Prestige Miriam / Mariamma Nagar SRA — 4–5 × 75F+
C BDD Chawls — 33×40F + 8–10×80F; east/SE density wall
D Worli Police Colony — FSI-4, ~250m west; only direct western threat
E Sumitomo / Bombay Dyeing — 22-acre mega-development
F Lodha ~4ac — north of DP Road [pending]
G Sterling / Worli Dairy SRA — 38F
H Lodha Seaface — KAGK coastal wall ~50F
I Worli STP — subsoil/odour corridor, ESE
J Aspect Realty — 57F opposite Raaya
K Birla Century Textiles — 10-acre ABREL parcel
L Coastal Road slum — L-shaped, SRA probable
M Oberoi Mall / commercial — Pandurang Budkar Marg
Critical scale
High / confirmed
Medium / pipeline
Infrastructure
Subject property
Note: Adarsh Nagar MHADA redevelopment (NNW density driver for Nautilus) sits beyond the northern edge of this frame.
Raaya is view-impaired, marketed as "Worli's Crown Jewel" on a western Arabian Sea / Sea Link panorama. That view does not exist: Palais Royale (63F, complete since 2010) permanently severed the central NW sea arc — the marketed Sea Link image is a labelled stock photo, and the CGI omits 9 confirmed structures. The unit is 360° boxed at possession + 5, the worst SRD in our analysis: Palais Royale (NW), BDD Chawls 40–75F (N), the Four Seasons cluster 34–62F (NE), Kalpataru One 70F (NE), Aspect Realty 57F (S) and Jijamata Nagar 8×43F (SSW) close every horizon. The "Four Seasons Paradox" is acute — the landmark used to justify the Worli address premium is itself the NE obstruction wall. Net: no clear arc survives to handover.
§5
Unit Analysis
Reference unit: Tower 2-4602, 5-BHK, Tower 2, 46th floor — 348.29 sqm carpet
V
L
Layout Quality — 88% (tied 2nd of 10 in our analysis)
At 88% layout efficiency with a column-free 39'3"×25'9" living room, the unit is among the best in our analysis — tied 2nd of 10 with Niyaara Tower B. On a registered ₹69,352/sqft carpet basis, the layout-adjusted effective rate is ₹78,809/sqft — fairly priced on unit quality. The defining paradox of Raaya is that an excellent apartment sits inside the worst compound and environment in our analysis; the open question is the discount the buyer should demand for that compound/environment risk.
Kalpataru One (P04)
94%
Runwal Raaya (P10) ◀
88%
Sugee SeaKrest (P02)
86.6%
Rustomjee Crown (P08)
82%
Prestige Nautilus (P01)
78%
Kitchen VentilationPASS — kitchen → utility → external wall
Lift Wait TimeGrade A — 3 exclusive on-demand lifts (best in our analysis)
Non-RERA Carpet Area281 sqft restricted common area "Private Lobby" (7.5% of carpet) — ₹1.70 Cr, never owned
Reference Price₹26.0 Cr total · ₹69,352/sqft (registered carpet)
Effective ₹/sqft₹78,809 (registered ÷ 0.88 layout efficiency)
Water SupplyWarn → High — Building Approval (IOD) Cond.9 extra W&S charges; hotel parcel zero coverage; adequacy deferred to OC
§6
Access & Infrastructure
Rush Hour Commute · Neighbourhood at Handover
L — Livability
Rush Hour Commute: Grade D (LOS D). Frontage on the 30.48m Ganpatrao Kadam Marg; both approaches — Worli Naka and Tulsipipe Road — are severely congested, with Peninsula Corporate Park, the A-to-Z Industrial Estate (HGV movements directly opposite Tower 2) and residential towers all sharing the same roads. Uniquely in our analysis, the project's own hotel/commercial tower adds self-inflicted traffic load that residents are contractually barred from objecting to (Sale Agreement Clause 19.39).
Neighbourhood at Handover: SRD graded Critical — 360° boxed, most concerning in our analysis. A December 2032 possession lands the buyer inside an active multi-site zone where every horizon closes: BDD Chawls (north), Four Seasons / Kalpataru One (NE), Aspect Realty (south), Jijamata Nagar (SSW), Siddharth Nagar SRA (west), Palais Royale (NW). The exclusivity premium should be stress-tested against the 2030s neighbourhood, not today's.
Neighbourhood at Handover: SRD graded Critical — 360° boxed, most concerning in our analysis. A December 2032 possession lands the buyer inside an active multi-site zone where every horizon closes: BDD Chawls (north), Four Seasons / Kalpataru One (NE), Aspect Realty (south), Jijamata Nagar (SSW), Siddharth Nagar SRA (west), Palais Royale (NW). The exclusivity premium should be stress-tested against the 2030s neighbourhood, not today's.
Community Profile
Within-building buyer composition — a lifestyle signal, not a risk flag
L — Livability
Business-dominant
Business-dominant within-building profile. Buyers who prioritise professional committee governance should factor this in alongside the multiple critical findings on this property.
Part 2
Findings — navigate by Severity or by FVL Category
§7
Findings Register
36 findings — 3 Critical · 19 High · 6 Med-High · 5 Medium · 2 Low-Med · 1 Positive
Floor count: 75F (Sale Agreement Second Schedule) vs 50F (RERA) — 25 unregistered floors per tower, most concerning in our analysis
FCriticalMisrep ×2.0
▶
A third of each tower is being sold outside the law that exists to protect its buyers. RERA registers 50 habitable floors; the CC was issued for 50F only and has lapsed; floors 51–75 carry no RERA registration, no completion protection, and unconfirmed contingent FSI. Unlike other cases in our analysis, the inflated number appears in the registered Sale Agreement itself, not just marketing.
Marketed / Sale Agreement
75-floor towers (marketing + Sale Agreement Second Schedule)
RERA / Approved
50 habitable floors; CC for 50F only (lapsed); floors 51–75 unregistered & unprotected
Hotel + retail suppression — full 9-clause Sale Agreement architecture
FCritical
▶
Nine coordinated clauses build a hotel into the buyers' compound while contractually erasing their right to mind: (J-iv) hotel named; (J-i) 1.9–2.5M sqft total FSI; (K) buyer pre-consents to Building No.3; (O) Promoter retains the hotel in perpetuity; (Y) buyers have zero rights over it; (19.39) cannot object to its construction; (4.2) all FSI waived; (13.4) never conveyed to societies; (J-v) shared basements. Marketed as a "low-density residential sanctuary."
38–53% of compound FSI invisible in the project description
FCritical
▶
Up to half the compound's buildable area exists in one recital and vanishes from the schedule three pages later. The Sale Agreement Second Schedule covers only 118,137 sqm; Building No.3's 71,863–131,863 sqm (potential 75F hotel) is completely absent from the schedule buyers sign, against Recital J-i's 190,000–250,000 sqm total envelope.
Mixed tenure: 56% freehold / 44% BMC leasehold — marketing implies freehold throughout
FHigh
▶
Nearly half the land under this "freehold" project belongs to the city. The Miskita & Co. title reports document a five-parcel hybrid against the marketing's uniform premium freehold framing.
First Leasehold expires Nov 2048 — 16-year residue at possession; lease deed not executed
FHigh
▶
Part of the land runs out of lease before the building runs out of warranty — and banks know it. The ~799 sqm CS 144(pt) leasehold residue sits below the ~30-year mortgage-lending threshold; the lease deed is not executed.
BMC Exchange Lands (~3,197 sqm): lease deed not executed — HC WP 1251/2014 pending
FHigh
▶
A fifth of the land's paper chain is missing its key document, and the gap is in litigation. The sub-lease chain on the Exchange Lands has a missing link, with Bombay HC WP 1251/2014 pending over lease execution.
CC lapsed 3 April 2026; Sale Agreement executed 5 weeks later with "revalidated from time to time" language
FHigh
▶
Buyers signed a month after the permit died — and the contract's wording shows the seller knew. The CC (4 Apr 2025) lapsed 3 Apr 2026; the Sale Agreement was executed 22 May 2026, with "revalidated from time to time" language confirming ADPL was aware of the lapse at execution.
PENDING — CC renewal status post-April 2026 unconfirmed; the developer may hold updated approvals not yet reflected on the portal.
Two active HC litigations — WP 10572/2014 + PIL 15884/2022; Sale Agreement treats them as force majeure triggers
FHigh
▶
Two live court matters double as the developer's pre-written excuse. No adverse orders yet; both pending. Per Sale Agreement Clause 6.1.3, an adverse order becomes the developer's exit ramp via force majeure.
PENDING — latest hearing dates / orders on both HC matters.
₹445 Cr Beacon NCDs — first-ranking charge; every buyer's title subject to it
FHigh
▶
Disclosed, but structural: the lender stands ahead of every buyer. The ₹445 Cr Beacon Trusteeship NCDs are a first-ranking pari passu charge confirmed in Sale Agreement Clause 28.2; an NOC is required per sale.
Tower 1 (leasehold) vs Tower 2 (freehold) — undisclosed split, marketed identically
FHigh
▶
Two towers, one price logic, two completely different legal realities. Tower 1's mortgage lending is impaired (leasehold / Exchange Lands); Tower 2 is clean freehold — yet both are positioned and priced identically.
A-to-Z Industrial Estate directly opposite Tower 2 — absent from all CGI
LHigh
▶
The render erased a working industrial estate from across the street. Field observation confirms HGV movements, shift changes and 24/7 industrial activity across the 30.48m road — none of it shown in the CGI's "open surroundings."
Permanent FSI waiver — all present and future FSI belongs to the Promoter in perpetuity
FHigh
▶
Every future square foot this land can ever generate was signed over to the seller on day one. Sale Agreement Clauses 4.1/4.2/xii surrender fungible, TDR, incentive and prepaid FSI — all present and future — to the Promoter at signing.
Marketing supersession — agreement extinguishes all brochures and representations
FHigh
▶
Everything the brochure promised legally evaporates the moment the buyer signs. Sale Agreement Clauses T + 29 extinguish all marketing claims and representations at signing.
Palais Royale permanently severs the central NW sea arc — complete since 2010, in no CGI
VHighMisrep ×2.0
▶
The marketed view has had a 320-metre hole in it since 2010. Palais Royale (~320m / 63F, complete 2010) sits across the marketed Sea Link / NW sea panorama — a structural void in the view the buyer is sold.
BDD Chawls: 33×40F rehab + 10×75F sale towers rising north/NNE
LHigh
▶
The largest scheme in the area rises across Raaya's northern arc with sovereign certainty. Government-backed and certain; the angle from Raaya is worse than from Kalpataru One.
Aspect Realty 57F ~300–400m south — obstructs south views for the lower two-thirds of Tower 2
VHigh
▶
The southern arc closes by possession. Aspect Realty's 57F tower sits ~300–400m south, obstructing south views for the lower two-thirds of Tower 2.
PENDING — Aspect Realty RERA no. + exact floor count.
Jijamata Nagar (Prestige/Valor) 8×43F active SSW — southern tower canyon forming
LHigh
▶
Eight towers are already climbing into the southwest sky. Active construction at Jijamata Nagar (8×43F), forming a southern tower canyon SSW of Raaya.
PENDING — construction timeline.
Four Seasons Paradox: the Worli-premium anchor is itself the NE obstruction cluster
VHigh
▶
The landmark used to sell the address is the wall outside the window. The Four Seasons complex (Hotel 34F + Residences 62F complete; commercial ~60F under construction) fills Tower 2's northeast arc to 62 floors — the same complex used to justify the "Worli" address premium.
PENDING — commercial tower floor count + BP no.
CGI omits 9 confirmed structures; Sea Link image is a stock photo; "Private Lobby" = unowned restricted common area
VHighMisrep ×2.0
▶
The brochure's three flagship images are, respectively, an erasure, a stock photo, and a billing line for space the buyer can't own. The "Worli's Crown Jewel" render shows a view impossible since 2010; the Sea Link lifestyle image (pp.42–43) is a labelled stock photo; and the "Private Lobby" is ₹1.70 Cr of restricted common area the buyer never owns. Locked for report: render-vs-satellite juxtaposition; stock-photo vs obstruction map; Sale Agreement Item 9(b) vs "Private Lobby" claim.
Rush-hour commute Grade D — both approaches congested; the project's own hotel adds self-inflicted load
LHigh
▶
The development worsens its own access and contractually silences the people who'll sit in it. Worli Naka + Tulsipipe Road are both congested; uniquely in our analysis, residents contractually cannot object to the hotel traffic added to their own commute (Sale Agreement Clause 19.39).
Water supply Warn→High: extra W&S charges flagged; hotel parcel has zero water coverage under this IOD
LHigh
▶
Nobody has yet shown the water maths for the building actually being sold — let alone the hotel beside it. IOD Cond.9 flags extra W&S charges; the HE NOC calculation basis (50F vs 75F) is unconfirmed; the hotel parcel (CS 109) has zero water coverage under this IOD; adequacy is deferred to OC (Cond.D-21).
CS 109 transition: BMC access route at IOD → hotel site by Sale Agreement, with no approvals in between
FHigh
▶
Between two documents seventeen months apart, a municipal access strip became a hotel site — without acquiring a single approval on the way. IOD Cond.42 (Dec 2024) treats CS 109 as a crossing requiring NOC; Sale Agreement Part D (May 2026) makes it the hotel site, while the First Schedule still calls it "Municipal land." No IOD, no CC, no executed lease for the hotel site.
PENDING — confirm whether CS 109 was included in the BMC Exchange Lands June 2025 deed.
RCA / Private Lift Paradox: 281 sqft restricted common area lobby — ₹1.70 Cr for unownable space
VMed-HighMisrep ×2.0
▶
₹1.70 crore buys the right to walk through a lobby the buyer will never own. The 281 sqft "Private Lobby" is a restricted common area "exclusive right to use" only — 6.5% of consideration — confirmed independently in two documents (Sale Agreement Item 9(b) + floor-plan area schedule); the One Avighna Park BMC enforcement precedent is cited.
Undisclosed commercial tower planned on the chawl + garage parcel — builder claim only
FPendingMed-High
▶
Beyond the hidden hotel, the builder speaks of yet another commercial tower — on a parcel the title report doesn't even cover. Not in the title report's Larger Lands; not RERA registered; if it materialises: additional construction nuisance post-possession plus further compound density. This is the dropped sixth MED-HIGH row that reconciles the Chat 2 register's "36 FINDINGS" header.
PENDING — title search on the chawl + garage parcel: confirm ownership and any development application.
Possession: 2030 internal vs Dec 2032 RERA; floors 51–75 have ZERO RERA completion protection
FMed-High
▶
Reality points two-to-five years past the date in the sales pitch. The 2030 "commitment" has no legal force; probable actual delivery is 2033–2035 given the CC lapse, ADPL's lack of an OC track record, and contingent FSI for floors 51–75 (which carry zero RERA completion protection).
Siddharth Nagar SRA — Raaya's own registered address; primary western view obstruction when redeveloped
VMed-High
▶
The slum in the project's own address line is the future wall across its sea view. A ~300m west cluster, 35–50F probable on redevelopment; construction would mean immediate compound adjacency.
PENDING — SRA portal: any LOI issued.
Open-spaces deficiency language laundering: IOD premium → Sale Agreement catch-all → marketing silence
FMed-High
▶
The resort compound is officially certified short on the very openness it sells. IOD Cond.10(a) + 33(e) record a development regulations-2034 open-space deficiency, premium-paid, with the mandated buyer disclosure buried in Sale Agreement Clause N's catch-all and silent in marketing's "luxury resort" framing.
RERA Interface FAILING — cross-contaminated filings, 11-month staleness, in-person discrepancy
FMed-High
▶
The public record buyers are told to rely on is wrong, stale, and incomplete — simultaneously. Tower 1's filing contains Tower 2's old layouts; Tower 2 is unchanged since Jul 2025 (11 months); floor plans are absent from the portal and had to be obtained directly from the builder. Combined with the lapsed CC, this is the strongest combined delivery-risk signal we have seen across our analysis.
999-yr leasehold (CS 4/71 pt) effectively permanent — mutation KNPL→ADPL pending
FMedium
▶
Fine in substance, unfinished in paperwork. The 999-year leasehold (CS 4/71 pt) is effectively permanent; the KNPL→ADPL mutation is administratively outstanding.
ADPL incorporated 2021 — zero comparable delivered project
FMedium
▶
The legal counterparty has never finished a building like this one. Aethon Developers Private Limited (CIN U70109MH2021PTC364477) was incorporated 2021; RERA recourse runs against the four-year-old SPV only, not the Runwal legacy positioning.
CS 1/145 ROW dispute — Koita Brothers contest the 40-ft Fergueson Road passage
FMedium
▶
One of the access passages is contested. The Koita Brothers contest the 40-ft Fergueson Road passage on CS 1/145; unresolved per the title report.
PIN 400013 = Lower Parel; marketed universally as Worli 400018
VMediumMisrep ×2.0
▶
The address premium is borrowed from a postcode the project doesn't have. RERA PIN 400013 is Lower Parel; marketing universally uses Worli 400018 — and the Worli anchor (Four Seasons) is also the view obstruction.
Terrace/rooftop/helipad retained by Promoter — commercially licensable without buyer consent
FMedium
▶
The roof of the buyers' building belongs, forever, to someone else's business plan. Sale Agreement Clauses 5.5 + 21 retain the terrace/rooftop with a helipad specifically contemplated — commercially licensable without buyer consent.
Society office and fitness centre not handed to the society (IOD Cond.34-f)
FLow-Med
▶
Even the society's own office stays in the developer's column. Noted at IOD Condition 34-f.
Tandem parking may be allotted to a single owner (IOD Cond.34-d)
LLow-Med
▶
Parking allocations may stack. Disclosed at IOD Condition 34-d.
DP 2034 clean: residential zone, no reservation, no heritage, no ASI buffer, no proposed road line
FPositive
▶
The development plan, at least, has nothing against this site. DP 2034 shows a clean residential-zone position — no reservation, no heritage, no ASI buffer, no proposed road line.
F
Fundamentals
The foundation — title clarity, approvals, developer compliance, and whether you get possession on time
23 findings
Floor count: 75F (Sale Agreement) vs 50F (RERA) — 25 unregistered floors per tower
Critical
▶
A third of each tower sold outside RERA; CC for 50F only (lapsed); floors 51–75 unregistered & unprotected. The inflated number is in the registered Sale Agreement itself — most concerning in our analysis.
Hotel + retail suppression — 9-clause Sale Agreement architecture
Critical
▶
Nine coordinated clauses build a hotel into the compound while erasing buyers' right to object (pre-consent, perpetuity, zero rights, shared basements).
38–53% of compound FSI invisible in the project description
Critical
▶
Building No.3's 71,863–131,863 sqm absent from the 118,137 sqm Second Schedule buyers sign.
Mixed tenure 56% freehold / 44% BMC leasehold — implied freehold
High
▶
Five-parcel hybrid; nearly half the land belongs to the city.
First Leasehold expires Nov 2048 — 16yr residue; lease deed not executed
High
▶
Residue below the ~30yr mortgage-lending threshold.
BMC Exchange Lands lease deed not executed — HC WP 1251/2014
High
▶
Sub-lease chain has a missing link, in litigation.
CC lapsed 3 Apr 2026; Sale Agreement executed 5 weeks later
High
▶
"Revalidated from time to time" language confirms ADPL knew the CC was lapsed at execution. PENDING — renewal status post-Apr 2026.
Two active HC litigations — Sale Agreement treats them as force-majeure triggers
High
▶
WP 10572/2014 + PIL 15884/2022 double as the developer's pre-written exit ramp (Sale Agreement 6.1.3).
₹445 Cr Beacon NCDs — first-ranking charge ahead of every buyer
High
▶
Disclosed but structural (Sale Agreement 28.2); NOC required per sale.
Tower 1 leasehold vs Tower 2 freehold — undisclosed split, marketed identically
High
▶
Tower 1 mortgage-impaired; Tower 2 clean — same price logic, different legal realities.
Permanent FSI waiver — all present/future FSI to Promoter in perpetuity
High
▶
Sale Agreement 4.1/4.2/xii — fungible, TDR, incentive, prepaid all surrendered at signing.
Marketing supersession — agreement extinguishes all brochures
High
▶
Sale Agreement Clauses T + 29 extinguish all marketing claims at signing.
CS 109: BMC access route at IOD → hotel site by Sale Agreement, no approvals between
High
▶
A municipal access strip became a hotel site without acquiring a single approval; no IOD/CC/lease. PENDING — CS 109 in BMC Exchange Lands deed?
Undisclosed commercial tower on chawl + garage parcel — builder claim only
Pending
▶
Not in title report's Larger Lands; not RERA registered; the dropped 6th MED-HIGH row reconciling the "36 FINDINGS" header. PENDING — title search on the parcel.
Possession 2030 internal vs Dec 2032 RERA; floors 51–75 zero protection
Med-High
▶
Probable actual delivery 2033–2035 given CC lapse + no OC track record + contingent FSI.
Open-spaces deficiency language laundering: IOD → Sale Agreement catch-all → silence
Med-High
▶
Development regulations-2034 non-compliant on open space, premium-paid; buyer disclosure buried in Sale Agreement Clause N.
RERA Interface FAILING — cross-contaminated filings, 11mo stale, off-portal plans
Med-High
▶
Tower 1 carries Tower 2's old layouts; Tower 2 stale 11mo; plans off-portal. With the lapsed CC, the strongest combined delivery-risk signal in our analysis.
999-yr leasehold (CS 4/71 pt) effectively permanent — mutation pending
Medium
▶
Fine in substance; KNPL→ADPL mutation administratively outstanding.
ADPL incorporated 2021 — zero comparable delivered project
Medium
▶
RERA recourse runs against the four-year-old SPV only, not the Runwal brand.
CS 1/145 ROW dispute — Koita Brothers contest the 40-ft passage
Medium
▶
One access passage contested; unresolved per title report.
Terrace/rooftop/helipad retained by Promoter — licensable without consent
Medium
▶
Sale Agreement 5.5 + 21; helipad specifically contemplated.
Society office & fitness centre not handed to the society (IOD 34-f)
Low-Med
▶
Even the society's own office stays in the developer's column.
DP 2034 clean — residential zone, no reservation/heritage/road line
Positive
▶
The development plan has nothing against this site.
V
Value
The deal — layout quality, views at handover, and whether the price is justified by what you actually receive
7 findings
Palais Royale permanently severs the central NW sea arc — since 2010
High
▶
~320m/63F structure sits across the marketed Sea Link / NW panorama; in no CGI.
Aspect Realty 57F south — obstructs south views for lower two-thirds of Tower 2
High
▶
Southern arc closes by possession. PENDING — RERA no. + floor count.
Four Seasons Paradox: the Worli-premium anchor is the NE obstruction cluster
High
▶
The complex fills Tower 2's NE arc to 62F. PENDING — commercial tower floor count + BP no.
CGI omits 9 structures; Sea Link image stock photo; "Private Lobby" unowned restricted common area
High
▶
Render shows a view impossible since 2010; lobby is ₹1.70 Cr of restricted common area the buyer never owns.
RCA Paradox: 281 sqft restricted common area "Private Lobby" — ₹1.70 Cr unownable
Med-High
▶
"Exclusive right to use" only; 6.5% of consideration; One Avighna Park BMC precedent cited.
Siddharth Nagar SRA — Raaya's own address; future western view wall
Med-High
▶
~300m west cluster, 35–50F probable; immediate compound adjacency on redevelopment. PENDING — SRA LOI status.
PIN 400013 = Lower Parel; marketed universally as Worli 400018
Medium
▶
Address premium borrowed from a postcode the project doesn't have.
L
Livability
The daily reality — commute, building density, neighbourhood character, and quality of services at possession
6 findings
A-to-Z Industrial Estate directly opposite Tower 2 — absent from all CGI
High
▶
HGV movements, shift changes, 24/7 industrial activity across the 30.48m road — erased from the render.
BDD Chawls: 33×40F rehab + 10×75F sale towers rising north/NNE
High
▶
Largest area scheme rises across Raaya's northern arc with sovereign certainty.
Jijamata Nagar 8×43F active SSW — southern tower canyon forming
High
▶
Eight towers climbing the SW sky. PENDING — construction timeline.
Rush-hour commute Grade D — both approaches congested; self-inflicted hotel load
High
▶
Residents contractually cannot object to the hotel traffic on their own commute (Sale Agreement 19.39) — unique in our analysis.
Water supply Warn→High — extra W&S charges; hotel parcel zero water coverage
High
▶
HE NOC basis (50F vs 75F) unconfirmed; adequacy deferred to OC.
Tandem parking may be allotted to a single owner (IOD 34-d)
Low-Med
▶
Parking allocations may stack. Disclosed.
Part 3
Verdict — FVL Score breakdown + final assessment
§8
Verdict
Skip (Severe) — most caveated property in our analysis
Rexray FVL Index — Score Breakdown
F
Fundamentals
The foundation — title, approvals, compliance, and delivery
Weak
3.0 / 10 · Weight 40%
V
Value
The deal — layout, views at handover, and price justification
Medium
5.5 / 10 · Weight 40%
L
Livability
The daily reality — commute, density, services, and neighbourhood
Weak
3.0 / 10 · Weight 20%
FVL Overall
4.0
/ 10 · (F×0.40) + (V×0.40) + (L×0.20) · Weak
The misrepresentation of the floor count (25 unregistered floors — most concerning in our analysis) caps the verdict regardless of the numeric scores. Scores are for reference only; the verdict is driven by the critical deal-breaker below, not the composite.
Critical Risk Review
Material concealment — critical: a hotel building (No.3) named in one part of the registered document is missing from its own schedule of structures; compounded by a failing RERA interface and a lapsed commencement certificate.
Standing caveat: per latest available RERA filings as of June 2026 — the RERA Interface is FAILING and the portal is not a usable source for this project; layouts were obtained directly from the builder. The CC issued 4 April 2025 lapsed 3 April 2026; renewal status is unconfirmed and the developer may hold updated approvals not yet reflected on the portal.
On-Time Delivery Risk — Critical
A 25-floor gap sits in the 15+ "Critical" band; the CC lapsed 3 April 2026 with no renewal on record; the RERA Interface is FAILING; ADPL has zero OC track record; floors 51–75 sit on contingent FSI; and two Bombay HC litigations sit in the Sale Agreement as force-majeure triggers. Probable delivery is 2033–2035 vs the December 2032 RERA date. Combined rating: Critical.