Raheja Modern Vivarea

• The land is not the developer's. Nine years after the deal, Plot D1 still stands in the landowner's name on the property card.
• What K Raheja holds is an agreement for sale dated 30 June 2017 with a registered power of attorney — not a conveyance.
• The title certificate puts it in the plainest terms available: the landowner's title is clear 'subject to the rights and interests of K Raheja Corp Pvt.
• Ltd. under the afore recited Agreement for Sale'.
• That is the language of contractual rights, not of ownership, and it is the single biggest thing holding this score down.

• Three facts compound it.
• The consideration under that 2017 agreement is never disclosed anywhere — not in the title reports, not in the registered agreement, not in the regulator filing — and neither is whether it has been paid.
• A supplementary agreement of 25 January 2024 amended the instrument and no document in the file says how; it is the only paper that could carry the price, the sharing split, the timelines or the termination rights, and it is the most load-bearing unknown here.
• And the split between developer and landowner is referred to five separate times as their 'respective entitlements' and never once quantified.

• The consequence for a buyer is that the chain has two unexecuted links, not one.
• Landowner to developer is unexecuted.
• Developer to condominium is also unexecuted — and the condominium cannot form until both towers are complete, with the deed of apartment following, estimated September 2028.
• The undivided share is not even calculable until then, is measured by floor space index consumed, and the developer's determination of it is 'final and binding'.
• It is also why the building permission's standard condition — 'this permission does not entitle you to develop land which does not vest in you' — reads as live here rather than as boilerplate.

• The second drag is documentary. The only opinion stating that title is 'clear, marketable and free from encumbrances' is dated 24 February 2022.
• The two registered mortgages over the whole plot — Rs 450 crore and Rs 250 crore, both still unsatisfied — were created on 25 March 2022, one month later.
• The 2024 supplemental records them and stops there, issuing no fresh conclusion.
• Alongside that, the opinion disclaims zoning, reservations, floor space index, developability and plan permissions; no public notice inviting claims was issued, at the client's request; no court searches were run; and the searcher records the registry index as 'not maintained' for several of the fifty-nine years searched.
• A named partner of the certifying firm has also been a director of the landowner since 2014, undisclosed — which flows from the same root fact, that the firm is certifying the landowner's title.

• None of this is a comment on the builder. It is the structure of buying mill land from a listed owner, which cannot convey a plot carrying Rs 700 crore of security out early.
• Everything the developer controls reads well: freehold tenure, an unbroken registered chain since 1935, a sole owner with no fragmented tenancies, no rehabilitation cohort, the urban-land-ceiling and sickness-revival and mill-closure and workers'-dues questions all cleared, the condition tying this plot to the mill-workers' housing deleted in 2017, all three suits annexed with a specific indemnity for the adverse one, and the mortgages disclosed both in the agreement's own schedule and in the marketing footer.
• Compare the same group's other freehold mill-land project, which scores 8 on title: there the developer held a registered twenty-year development-rights chain and an opinion covering its own position.
• That difference is essentially the whole gap.

• The building is finished. Both towers are topped out — structure complete to full sanctioned height, 40 habitable floors in the north tower and 41 in the south.
• The north tower holds an occupation certificate dated 27 March 2025 covering its 1st to 23rd habitable floors, both basements, the amenity level and part of the podium, and has been occupied since.
• The full building permission of 11 October 2024 covers the entire work of both towers.
• That combination removes almost all of the delivery risk a buyer would otherwise be underwriting, and it is the strongest position in this analysis.

• It also removes the two failure modes this analysis most often finds.
• There is no contingent floor space index: the sanctioned envelope is fully approved and fully consumed, with a balance of 52 square metres out of 67,513.
• And there is no non-revenue building on the critical path — no rehabilitation tower, no transit camp, no off-site slum obligation gating anyone's keys.
• A condition that once tied this plot to redeveloping mill-workers' housing on a neighbouring parcel was deleted in January 2017.

What remains is housekeeping that has not been closed, and it is not trivial:

• The requirement for a revised environmental clearance before building permission was restated, unqualified, in the very August 2024 approval the governing permission rests on — and no clearance appears anywhere in the file. Meanwhile the second tower was extended to 30 floors in 2022 and to all 41 in 2024, both well past the 18th-floor level at which that clearance was first required.
• A revised high-rise committee clearance was also still outstanding as at August 2024.
• The 11 October 2024 permission expired on its face on 21 June 2025 — it inherited the original 2018 anniversary instead of taking a fresh one-year term — and no renewal appears in the record.
• Every remaining approval condition was expressly deferred to full occupation, including rainwater harvesting and dense plantation over half the ground-level open space.

• What is left on the south tower is finishing and certification, not construction — a materially different proposition from the two-and-a-half-year build its September 2028 registration date would suggest on paper.
• And every remaining item on this list is a certification question rather than a building one.

• Read the public record alone and you would reach several wrong conclusions about this project.
• The building-permission table is blank for the north tower, although a complete chain exists in the documents ending in a full permission for both towers. Latitude and longitude are recorded as zero. The same 2010 suit is listed twice, so the litigation table reads as three court matters where there are two — and the 2025 High Court suit over transferable development rights, which touches this project's own floor space index, does not appear at all.

• Against that, the developer's own disclosure discipline is better than the Rexray set usually finds.
• Litigation is answered yes rather than suppressed, and the suits are annexed to the agreement in full with a specific indemnity for the most adverse one.
• The promoter change was effected properly, with the new entity assuming every one of its predecessor's obligations without a carve-out.
• The title reports, the tribunal order, the occupation certificate and three successive versions of the agreement are all on file.

• Two loose threads.
• The current encumbrance declaration is expressly an addition to six earlier ones, none of which is in the disclosure set, and it carries no date on its face — only digital signature timestamps.
• And the intake set's own filing calls the tribunal order a promoter insolvency when it is a corporate demerger, which is the kind of mislabelling that propagates.

• The brochure is thirteen pages — four renders and nine floor plans.
• No location page, no map, no amenity list, no specification, no possession date, no price, and no floor count at all.
• That last omission is worth noting as a positive: with no storey claim, there is nothing to inflate, and the floor-count overstatement this analysis routinely finds simply does not exist here.

• What holds up. The headline view claim — sea, golf course and racecourse — is substantiated on the west, where every deck faces.
• The marketed unit dimensions match the sanctioned plate line for line, which is a clean result and unusual.
• The mortgage is disclosed in the footer of all thirteen pages.
• Both registration numbers appear throughout.

• What does not. Every page names K Raheja Corp Pvt Ltd as the developer — an entity that ceased to be the promoter of this project on 1 February 2024.
• The actual promoter appears nowhere, and neither does the landowner in whom the land still vests.

• The Western Railway corridor forms the entire west boundary. It is absent from every word and every image, while the renders sell that exact outlook as an unbroken sweep of greens to open sea.
• No parking content whatsoever, against 809 bays that are largely stack and tandem across nine levels.
• No mention of the litigation, the seven-metre gap between the two towers, the neighbouring condominium and MHADA layout, or the mill-land origin — which surfaces only as 'an homage to a great chapter in Mumbai's history'.
• The view is promised to 'these beautiful residences' with no tower, side or floor limit, although the brochure's own plans put the kitchens and entrance lobbies on the east.

• The address is styled '11 Racecourse' against a Byculla-division registered address whose street name, plot number, ward and postal district are never printed anywhere.
• This is the second time this developer group appears in this analysis marketing a locality its registered documents do not support.

• Every private deck on the sanctioned plate faces west.
• Kitchens, utilities, servant rooms and the entrance foyers face east.
• That single orientation fact decides this attribute, because of what sits on each side.

• Going west from the building: the plot's own paved open ground; then a 30 metre setback from the railway line, annotated on the sanctioned plan; then the Western Railway lines and yard, which are the registered west boundary; and beyond them the Mahalaxmi Racecourse and the golf course.
• Not one link in that chain can be built on.
• Re-run on field-confirmed coordinates — the real position sits about 120 metres further west than the public record allows you to work out, since it lists this project's latitude and longitude as zero — the west arc holds clear at every habitable floor, and the racecourse and sea aspect is field-confirmed.
• This is a durable result that depends on nobody's restraint, and it is what separates this address from its neighbours in this belt.

The same re-run found two things the reconstructed position had hidden, and they are recorded rather than netted off:

• North — the older Raheja Vivarea estate sits about 173 metres away at roughly 140 metres tall, clearing above the 45th floor, which is above this tower. It partially walls the north arc at every habitable floor across about a fifth of it. Its height is still assumed, and confirming it is now the single most useful remaining check.
• South-west — distant Lower Parel massing at about 480 metres clears above the top floor across roughly a third of that arc. It clips the southern edge of the deck arc without entering it.

• North-west deserves both readings. The near field is permanently open — the municipal recreation ground handed over on the adjoining parcel sits off the north tower's north-west corner and cannot be built on.
• That is exactly why the developer put the larger apartment format in that tower: it is the best-protected corner of the compound.
• What the raycast flags on that arc is the far horizon, distant Worli and Lower Parel massing at 1.3 to 1.4 kilometres clearing above this tower's top floor across about a third of it.
• At that range it reads as skyline, not as a block.
• Near field open, far horizon partly built — both true.

• The east remains the weak side, and it is where the kitchens and lobbies look.
• The neighbouring condominium clears at about the 15th floor, and the housing-board layout beyond it is the real future threat — layouts like it redevelop tall here.
• And the two towers wall each other's ends: the south tower is one floor taller, so the north tower's south end aspect is blocked by its own sibling at every habitable floor across roughly 38% of that arc.
• No view engine can see this, because it correctly drops a subject's own towers from the obstruction set; it had to be computed by hand.
• What softens it is that the plate puts ducts, wardrobes, toilets and service shafts at the short ends and takes the bedrooms' light from the long faces.

• The honest reframing of the marketing: the reason your racecourse view survives is that a working railway yard sits between you and it.
• Permanent protection and permanent noise in the same object — and the field read is blunt about the trade: the noise is real, and what you get for it is the clear racecourse and sea view.

• The sanctioned north-tower plate carries 755 square metres of carpet across three apartments in 884.83 square metres of built-up area — a base efficiency of 85.3%, which is a good starting number.
• After the two plan-read adjustments the layout-efficiency engine returns 80.3%, placing it between two well-regarded plates in this analysis.

• What is right about the plan: it is a straight slab with a central corridor serving three doors, so there is no butterfly circulation and no wasted spine.
• There are no interior columns in the living space.
• The living-dining room measures 5.18 by 10.50 metres, generous for the bedroom count.
• And every apartment spans the full 13.85-metre plate depth with openings on both long faces — deliberate dual aspect, which is a design decision rather than an accident and earns a credit.

• What is wrong: the servant quarters are tight for this price band — a maid's room of 1.50 by 2.70 metres with a 1.36 by 1.225 metre toilet.
• That is the single deduction, and it is worth six points.

• The stack-level caveat matters more than the average. The centre apartment on the north-tower plate is marketed with 'BALCONY N.A.' — no deck at all — which drops it to 77.3%.
• In a building sold on its view, a home above Rs 15 crore with no private outdoor space is a specific choice a buyer should make knowingly, not discover afterwards.

• The south tower has not been measured.
• Its sanctioned plate is not in the Byculla-Mahalaxmi set; on the marketing plan it runs four apartments per floor at 1,669 to 2,181 square feet of carpet against the north tower's three at 2,364 to 2,891 — a materially smaller and denser format, notwithstanding that the two towers are otherwise the same design.

• There is no restricted-common-area finding here, and that is worth saying plainly because it is where this analysis usually finds money leaking.
• The deck is disclosed, separately measured, separately stated and expressly priced inside the consideration — 20.16 square metres across two decks on the north tower's four-bedroom stacks.
• That is what you buy, not a penalty.

• The agreement grants no exclusive or restricted-use common area to any apartment.
• The lift landing is limited common 'for the use of all apartment-holders' — shared, not carved out.
• And the diff that normally surfaces this problem comes back clean: the marketing layout and the approved layout agree, so no area appears inside an apartment in the brochure that the sanctioned plan treats as common.

• One watch item. The sanctioned plate nonetheless draws a separate enclosed foyer for each apartment off the common lobby — 1.80 by 3.05 metres and 2.40 by 3.05 metres on the end stacks, 3.65 by 3.20 metres on the centre — and those foyers sit inside the free-of-index staircase, lift and lobby allowance.
• So you get private use of an enclosed vestibule you neither own nor pay for.
• That is the favourable shape.
• But with three apartments per floor here and four in the south tower it is the multi-flat variant, which carries more municipal enforcement exposure than the single-apartment case, and a separate clause lets the developer enclose about 10 square metres between apartment front doors on amalgamation.

• One drafting oddity to have your lawyer resolve: the reference agreement states a carpet area under the older statute that is smaller than its stated carpet area under the current one, although the older figure is said to include balconies and the newer to exclude them.
• The lender's letter for the same home uses a third figure.
• Three areas, three definitions, one apartment, and the document reconciles none of them.

• The reference transaction registered in January 2026 at about Rs 67,770 per square foot of carpet, or Rs 65,005 including the balcony.
• Judged against the right comparable set — this frontage, the Keshavrao Khadye Marg and Clerk Road pocket one railway corridor east of the racecourse, and not 'Mumbai' or even 'Mahalaxmi' at large — that number sits between the two nearest micro-markets this analysis holds: Jacob Circle at Rs 50,000 to 55,000, and Saatrasta at about Rs 70,000.
• It sits nearer the Saatrasta end, which is what a freehold, part-delivered, racecourse-facing address ought to do.

• The strongest point is a coincidence that is not a coincidence.
• Published listing material for this project quotes an average of about Rs 67,863 per square foot.
• The registered price is Rs 67,770.
• A price registered on the quoted asking average, rather than materially beneath it, is the best documentary evidence available that nothing is being paid outside the agreement.
• Against the 2025 government rate for this zone — roughly Rs 23,530 per square foot — the registered rate is about 2.9 times reckoner, which is ordinary here.

Two adjustments belong beside the headline rate, not inside it.

• At a layout efficiency of 80.3%, Rs 67,770 per square foot of carpet is about Rs 84,400 per square foot of built-up area.
• About Rs 54.8 lakh of fixed extras sit on top of the price on the reference transaction — air-conditioning and false ceiling, a roughly two-year maintenance deposit and a corpus fund — plus tax, registration and club charges set at the developer's discretion. That is about 4.8% of the consideration.
• Running the other way, and unusually: the developer and the landowner bear the stamp duty, not the buyer. On the reference transaction that is Rs 67.87 lakh you do not pay, worth about 6% — more than the extras.

• One term belongs beside the rate rather than inside it.
• The payment schedule is effectively pay-on-signing: 50% within fifteen days of registering the agreement, a further 25% shortly after, and 75% in total before the occupation certificate.
• Because both towers are already topped out there are no construction stages left for the instalments to track.
• For the north tower, certified and occupied, paying up front buys something finished.
• For the south tower it means paying three quarters of the price before the certificate that is the one thing still outstanding — so negotiate the last tranche if you can.

• The cash-component question is now closed: none.
• The registered price landing on the quoted asking average was the documentary signal; the field read confirms it.
• Rexray reads the price as competitive for a grade-A builder with a clear, protected western aspect.
• That matters more than the number itself — a fully declared price at the market for a freehold, part-delivered address whose priced asset cannot be built out is a different thing from a discount hiding a compromise, and a different thing again from a premium charged for a view that will close.
• What is not charged here is the delivery position, the tenure, the plate efficiency and the surroundings — each is scored in its own place, and charging them twice would misread a fair price as a bad one.

• Start with what is absent, because it is the best fact in this block.
• There is no rehabilitation building, no slum-scheme tower and no project-affected cohort anywhere on this compound.
• The mill-land obligations were discharged in land, off-site, and every parcel has already been conveyed — 7,058 square metres to the housing board, 8,626 to the municipal corporation as a garden, and a further 1,163 conveyed in 2020.
• The tenement statement confirms it: 266 proposed, none existing.
• In a corpus where most comparable schemes carry rehabilitation mass on the plot, this removes both intra-plot co-habitation density and the delivery risk of a non-revenue building on the critical path.

• The density that is here is the developer's own.
• Floor space index is consumed at 4.00.
• And the two towers stand about 7.3 metres apart, measured off the sanctioned section — roughly 151 metres of near-continuous slab.
• This is not an inference: the agreement itself proposes to 'touch/join/connect' them and calls the second 'an extension/Wing to the Residential Tower 1'.
• The drawing and the contract say the same thing.
• This is one building in two parts.

• That has a governance consequence people miss. One condominium covers both towers, and it forms only after both are complete in full. So owners in the tower that has been occupied since March 2025 have no condominium, no deed of apartment and no quantified share of the land until the second tower finishes — currently September 2028.
• Their undivided share is not even calculable until then, is measured by floor space index consumed, and the developer's determination of it is stated to be 'final and binding'.

• Day to day: 266 homes, 809 car bays across nine parking levels, and both towers' amenity decks all share one podium.
• Two approval undertakings remain open on the record — a restriction on a fifth of the plot potential pending an affordable-housing notification, and an undertaking to hand surplus parking to the municipal corporation.

The static picture here is unusually well documented, and the same object cuts both ways. The field read is blunt about it: the railway noise is real, and what you get in exchange is the clear racecourse and sea view. That is a priced trade rather than a hidden defect — and because floors have been occupied since March 2025, it is one you can test before you sign rather than after.

• West — the Western Railway lines and yard, with a 30-metre setback drawn on the sanctioned plan and laid out as paved open ground. Permanently unbuildable, which is exactly why the view survives — and a working railway yard against the boundary, with the noise, vibration and night shunting that come with it. No marketing material mentions it.
• South — the municipal corporation's 8,626 square metre amenity plot, reserved open space. Durable.
• North-west — another municipal recreation ground on the parcel conveyed in 2020. Durable.
• East — the exposure. A 2004 condominium of about 65 homes on roughly an acre, which is prime redevelopment stock, and beyond it a 7,058 square metre housing-board layout, which in this belt redevelops tall. Both sit on the side the kitchens and entrance lobbies face.

• Wider out, this is one of the densest active high-rise redevelopment belts in the city.
• Within a few hundred metres the Jacob Circle and Saatrasta cluster already carries four large luxury schemes, three of them still building.
• What that means in practice — construction traffic, dust, crane hours and the eventual population — is a field question rather than a documentary one, and it stays open.

• On the environmental side the approvals are ordinary and nothing is buried: debris management, a below-ground design condition for aggressive groundwater, storm-water consultation, tree and fire clearances.
• There is no contamination finding, no sewage plant, no drain and no high-tension line.
• The real environmental item is on the boundary, not in the approvals, and it has a timetable.

• 20 minutes, measured at 11 a.m. on a weekday from this gate to the nearest coastal-road, sea-link or eastern-freeway entry.
• This number is always driven, never derived from a map, and it is the reading that matters because it is the one you will repeat.

For context, the two nearest addresses in this analysis measure 20 minutes from Saatrasta and 28 minutes from Jacob Circle. This sits level with the better of the two.

Two things put it at the top of that band rather than the bottom: the plot fronts a 42.6 metre wide arterial on its north boundary, so you are not queuing out of a narrow lane, and the title records two permanent road accesses rather than one — with non-exclusive rights of way over the neighbouring plots as a third, though those are the subject of the long-running boundary suits.

• The forward number is the more interesting one. A flyover is under construction from Saatrasta onto Keshavrao Khadye Marg — the road this plot fronts — and is expected ready by mid-2027.
• The field read is that it would cut the run to coastal access by about half, to roughly ten minutes.
• That lands before the south tower's September 2028 possession, so most buyers here would live with the post-flyover number rather than today's.
• The score deliberately stays on the measured present-day reading — that is what this attribute means — but if the flyover opens as projected, this becomes one of the better-connected addresses in the corridor rather than a middling one.

• What none of that fixes is the geography.
• This is a central-Mumbai address whose fast-road access runs west across the rail corridor, and 20 minutes at 11 a.m. is not 20 minutes at 9 a.m.
• Drive it yourself at both.

• A pass, and it is sealed off the sanctioned plate rather than taken on trust.
• Every kitchen on the north tower's typical floor pairs with a utility on the external face: the end stacks show a 3.66 by 4.255 metre kitchen opening directly into a 4.11 by 1.52 metre utility that sits on the building envelope, with an outdoor condenser pocket and a duct beyond it.

• That is a real exterior air path — cooking smells and heat leave the building rather than recirculating through it.
• In towers of this height, where the temptation is to bury the kitchen in the core and rely on mechanical extraction, this is the outcome you want and it is worth checking on the plan of whichever stack you are buying.

The sanctioned core carries three passenger lifts at 2.50 by 2.80 metres, two fire lifts at exactly the same size, a service lift with its own lobby and two staircases, around a 26.55 metre common lobby.

The question that decides this score is whether those two fire lifts carry passengers in normal use. They do. So the stack is served by five lifts, not three, and the morning interval for 40 floors at three homes per floor comes out at 23.6 to 30.3 seconds across the luxury speed and capacity band — Grade A almost everywhere in it, Grade B only at the slowest corner.

• For scale: on three lifts the same stack returns 39 to 51 seconds, which is Grade B to C and would have been a finding at this price.
• Five lifts for three homes a floor is generous provisioning, and it is the second-best lift position in this analysis.

• Two things still unread.
• The rated speed is nowhere in the documents — it lives on the lift schedule, not the floor plan — so this is a band rather than a single number; ask for the schedule.
• And the south tower runs 41 floors at four homes per floor on the same core, but its drawing is not in the Byculla-Mahalaxmi set, so its figure is derived rather than measured.

• There is no sanctioned water quantity, no population basis and no water-department clearance for this project anywhere in the approvals.
• What the municipal permission carries instead is seven water-touching conditions and not one number: an all-dues clearance from the ward before building permission, remarks from the hydraulic engineer's department, rainwater harvesting, and extra water and extra sewerage charges to be paid.

• The one condition that actually tests supply — a certificate 'regarding adequacy of water supply' under section 270-A of the municipal act — gates the building completion certificate.
• Not the building permission, and not occupation.
• So a building can be sanctioned, built and occupied before anyone has had to demonstrate the water to serve it, and that is what has happened here: rainwater harvesting was still an outstanding condition when the occupation certificate was issued in March 2025.

• This is a warning rather than a failure.
• Nothing here shows homes added after a water sanction was fixed — the count has been stable across the whole approval chain — and the problem is structural to Mumbai's approval sequence rather than specific to this developer.
• But 266 homes, most of them three and four bedrooms with servant quarters, on a city supply that is systemically short, is a real question.

• The unusual advantage here is that you can check. Floors have been lived in since March 2025.
• Ask a resident what the pressure is like on a high floor at 7 a.m., how many tanker deliveries the building takes in a month, and whether the extra water and sewerage charges have been paid or are still to be recovered from the condominium.

• The mechanism is better than most of what this analysis sees, and it was read off the drawing rather than the agreement, which is the only reliable way. You can drive to your bay. The sanctioned plan draws a six-metre two-way driveway at grade feeding four dedicated one-way ramps at 4.5 metres wide — separate entry and exit ramps at gradients between 1 in 10 and 1 in 11.35, running down to the basements and up through the podiums.
• Two dedicated one-way ramps is the best arrangement there is, and materially better than the single two-way circular ramp common on tight plots. There is no car lift anywhere, so there is no retrieval queue to wait in.

• The provision is generous: 809 car bays against 585 required by regulation, plus 133 scooter bays, across 266 homes — and the agreement allots three bays to a three-bedroom home where the Mumbai norm would be two.
• Nothing sits next to a habitable room; all of it is below the amenity level.

• What pulls it down is the depth and the terms, not the hardware. The field read rates the circulation best in class on the strength of those two separate one-way ramps, and the ratio is not merely at the Mumbai norm but half again above it.
• What remains:.

• Parking spreads over nine levels — two basements, ground and six podiums. That is real time on the ramp, every day, in both directions.
• The section shows double-stacked bays on the top two podiums, and the ground-level bay schedule is entirely stack and tandem. Bays are 2.5 by 5.5 metres — the municipal minimum, not the 2.7 to 3.0 metres a large vehicle wants.
• The bay is licensed, not owned: 'earmarked/provided by the Developer (as per its discretion)', with no level or number specified, and holders 'shall not have any rights whatsoever' beyond what the agreement gives them.
• The agreement is silent on installing a charger at your own bay. Not scored as a penalty — the point has not been put to the developer — but on a nine-level stack, shared chargers are a daily problem, so get it in writing.

• All four of those are negotiable at signing and none of them is negotiable afterwards.
• Ask for a named bay on the lowest podium nearest the lift core, a wider bay if you run a large vehicle, and a written charging right — in the agreement, not in an email.

• One more thing the drawing settles that the paperwork does not: the bay schedule on the ground and stilt level is 42 big stack bays, four small stack, ten tandem and three accessible — not a single independent single bay among them.
• Whether the podium levels above are better is not answerable from this document set, because the basement and podium parking plans are not in it.
• Ask for them before you agree to a bay you have not seen.

Rexray's database will, over time, be enriched with the attention to detail and quality ethos of each builder. For now, below is the checklist you should verify with the builder before you decide.

• This reads as homogeneous, and that is the point of the attribute.
• There are 266 homes and every one of them is a three, three-and-a-half or four bedroom between 1,669 and 2,891 square feet of carpet, listed at roughly Rs 15 to 38 crore.
• No studios, no investor-format units, no two-bedroom entry tier — and so none of the wide spread that pulls a building's community in two directions.

• There is also no rehabilitation cohort anywhere on the compound, because the mill-land obligations were discharged in land off-site.
• That removes the sale-versus-rehabilitation society split which complicates most comparable schemes in this belt, and it is why a single condominium across both towers is a workable structure here rather than a source of friction.

• Rexray's field read confirms it: a low-density plate of three homes per floor, one condominium, and an all-white buyer base with no cash element in the transactions.
• Homogeneous ticket size, declared money and no second society together is the top of what this measures, and it is materially better than the barbell mixes scored elsewhere.

• One thing to check on site rather than in the score: the north tower's homes are the larger format at three per floor, and the sanctioned tenement count closes exactly at four per typical floor for the south tower.
• Whether the two towers read as one community or two with different expectations is worth asking residents, not the sales desk.