The Legacy

• Municipal leasehold in perpetuity from 1953, demised by a registered indenture of 2004 at a rupee a year, with no expiry and therefore no renewal premium to fund — which is a better tenure than most leasehold stock in the Worli-Prabhadevi set.
• Against that sit four things the record does not resolve.
• The lease the whole title hangs from, the Form of Lease of 5 June 1953, has never been produced and is not in the Corporation's own files, so the covenants the 2004 demise is expressly subject to have never been read by anyone.
• A first mortgage created by a 1970 consent decree and registered in 1972 has no discharge anywhere on the record.
• A fifteen per cent claim on the development proceeds or the constructed area, decreed in arbitration in 2011, appears on no public register.
• And every opinion available rests on a single search of the register closed in July 2018 — the November 2019 supplemental says in terms that it refreshed neither the search nor the public notices, and the only later opinion, a second supplemental of September 2022, is named in the registered agreement, not attached to it, and has never reached the portal.
• The RERA-facing certificate meanwhile records the title as free of encumbrances and litigation as nil, against seven proceedings its own source recites.

• Municipal leasehold in perpetuity from 5 June 1953, registered demise of 13 August 2004, ground rent one rupee a year — no expiry, so no renewal premium to fund.
• The Form of Lease of 1953, which the 2004 demise is expressly subject to, has never been produced and is not in the Corporation's records.
• A first mortgage created by a 1970 consent decree, registered in 1972, with no discharge identified anywhere.
• A decreed right to fifteen per cent of the consideration or the constructed area on development, disclosed on no public register.
• Every available opinion rests on one search of the register closed 16 July 2018; the 2019 supplemental states that it refreshed neither the search nor the public notices.

• Sanctioned in August 2021 for the whole envelope — the approval states no floor limit and no height cap anywhere, so all thirty-one habitable floors have been approved since day one.
• The commencement certificate of June 2022 covers the podium, which is ordinary; certificates issue in tranches.
• Two things about it are not.
• It lapsed in June 2025 with nothing to replace it, and the last revalidation had already reached the Corporation's own three-year ceiling.
• And its extent has never once moved in four years, while the structure went from a plinth to about the twentieth habitable floor.
• Nothing has been sold above the SANCTION — all three sold floor pairs sit inside the approved thirty-one floors, so each waits on a routine tranche rather than on an approval that does not exist.
• There is a second delivery mechanism here that the density story obscured.
• A quarter of this building's floor space is earned by reserving twelve sections as surplus area for the housing authority and thirty-four more as tolerated or protected structure area; delivering that component to the authority is a pre-condition to the additional floor space index, and the entitlement can force revised proposals that alter the building.
• The dates carry the signature: certificate in June 2022, a revalidation application by May 2024 without the ten permitted podium levels finished, superstructure slabs still at forty per cent in March 2026.
• Several years between certificate and meaningful construction is what waiting on an allocation handover looks like.
• The tower has since moved at close to a floor and a half a month, which is ordinary competent work.
• On that pace topping out lands around the first quarter of 2027, broadly in line with the regulator's revised date as a structural milestone, and out of reach of the agreement's own possession date of 31 December 2026 — every finish, all services, the lifts and the occupation certificate sit on top of the structure and stood at nought in the last filing.
• Underneath runs a court-decreed obligation to rehouse two occupants whose completion date passed in August 2024, with rent at Rs.150 a square foot a month running to both until they get keys.

• Approved August 2021 — the whole thirty-one floor envelope, no floor limit in the approval.
• Certified to build June 2022, to the podium. Revalidated once, May 2024, time only. Lapsed since June 2025.
• A quarter of the floor space is earned by handing the authority its units — a pre-condition to the additional index.
• August 2026: ten podium decks and twenty habitable floors, about 71% of the tower's height.
• Nothing sold sits above the sanction; the agreement's possession date of 31 December 2026 is not reachable.

• The public record and the promoter's own filings do not line up, though less badly than a first reading suggests.
• The portal's apartment table reports twelve sanctioned residential units, which matches the twelve sale duplexes exactly — that part is right.
• What is not: it reports the commencement certificate as issued up to forty-five floors, which is the sanctioned LEVEL count entered into the certified field, while its own certificate table sits empty with no document and no date; it reports rehab units as nil when three whole duplexes are allotted to rehoused occupants; and it reports no financial encumbrance against a mortgage registered in 1972 with no discharge on record.
• Three of the promoter's filings give three different rehab counts — nil, about thirty and forty-six — and none states which question it is answering, because the larger two are counting allocation marks rather than homes.
• The engineer's certificate states a balance cost to complete of Rs.45.38 crore in its narrative and Rs.122.62 crore in its own tables.
• The architect's certificate prints the registration number wrong.
• And the registered agreement directs every payment to a collection account bearing a different number from the designated project account the promoter declared.

• A twelve-page brochure with no registration number, no possession date, no floor count, no unit count and no disclaimer of any kind — and the agreement it leads to disclaims it expressly, then extinguishes every representation made before signing.
• What is striking is how much of it holds.
• The first home really does start about a hundred and fifty feet up.
• There really is a two-way ramp to every parking deck.
• Every home really is a duplex, really is bare shell, and really does have an uninterrupted western sea aspect.
• The floor plates showing one full-plate apartment per level are ACCURATE — this genuinely is a building of fifteen duplexes — and the headline carpet figure of 6,246 square feet is the whole plate, within twenty-three square feet of the sanction and about six per cent above what the agreement conveys.
• What the brochure leaves out is narrower than it first appears but real: three of the fifteen homes go to the occupants of the demolished building under court decrees, and nothing in twelve pages says the scheme is a cessed-building redevelopment at all.
• The developer named on the cover holds no documented interest in the project, and the architect credited appears in no statutory document.

• This is what the money is for, and it is real.
• The plot's western boundary is the seafront road itself, twenty-four metres wide, with the promenade and the Arabian Sea beyond — so this building owns its aspect rather than borrowing it over somebody else's roof.
• The raycast returns the west, north-west and south-west arcs completely open: no wall, no pipeline threat, nothing.
• The three landward boundaries are a four-storey building north, a four-storey east and a two-storey south, and the lowest home in the building sits forty-six and a half metres above the road, higher than all of them, so none is a view event for any apartment.
• The layout then does something quietly clever: there are no east-facing habitable rooms at all, and the landward elevation carries the servant and service areas — so the one arc that is genuinely built out has nothing living behind it.
• Further off, the Lodha towers three hundred and fifty metres south and Kabra Dvayam three hundred and forty east clear from roughly the nineteenth floor.

• West, north-west and south-west: no wall and no threat at any floor.
• Landward boundaries are four storeys north, four east and two south; the lowest home is 46.55 m up.
• No east-facing habitable rooms — the landward elevation carries the servant and service areas.
• The Lodha stock 350 m south and the tower 340 m east clear from roughly the nineteenth floor.

• Seventy-nine per cent, measured off a registered instrument rather than a drawing — 487 square metres of carpet against 626 of built-up.
• The plate is a clean rectangle with the core pushed to one long edge: no butterfly circulation, no columns in the living space, three decks along the western face and a double-height living room.
• The servant room and the toilet at the mid landing are drawn but sit outside the charged area, so they cost nothing and take nothing off the efficiency.
• The caution is that the twelve sale duplexes are not one product — they run from 177 square metres of carpet at the bottom of the building to 574 at the top — so this figure describes the one apartment for which a registered agreement exists, not the whole stack.

• Clean, and unusually so.
• The agreement charges for carpet and the deck and nothing else, and its own clarification puts the lobby at the entrance to the apartment, the peripheral walls and the servant toilet at the mid landing outside what is being sold.
• Those are exactly the areas the sanctioned plates draw hatched.
• So on a whole-plate floor the resident has the exclusive use of a private lift lobby and the servant accommodation without owning either and without paying for either — a benefit, not a grant of restricted common area.
• The deck is separately stated and separately described, which is disclosure rather than a finding.
• The only caution is presentational: that uncharged area should not be counted into what a buyer thinks they bought, and it will not travel into a resale.
• On the shared plates lower down, where the same lobby serves a sale duplex and up to three rehousing homes, the reading may not hold — and no agreement for one of those exists.

• One registered print, and it is a long way below its own street.
• In August 2023 the duplex on the sixteenth and seventeenth floors sold bare shell for Rs.56.71 crore — 487 square metres of carpet, a 58 square metre deck and ten car bays — which is Rs.1,08,143 a square foot of carpet.
• The frontage band on this road starts at about Rs.1.5 lakh: Lodha Sea Face registered at Rs.1.25 lakh in 2025 and Naman Xana Coastal Road Entry Point, a few plots along, between Rs.2.45 and Rs.2.53 lakh.
• The instrument was declared above the government valuation and the promoter paid the Rs.3.4 crore of stamp duty himself, which are both good signs on a road where they are not guaranteed.
• The complication is time: the asking rate on this frontage is now Rs.2 lakh and above, so the discount in that print is three years old and today's buyer is being asked to pay at band for a building whose habitable floors still have no live certificate.
• Fit-out sits on top of whatever is agreed, and at seventy-nine per cent efficiency the effective rate on built-up area is about a quarter higher again.

• August 2023, registered: Rs.56.71 crore for 487.22 sqm of carpet, a 58.51 sqm deck and ten car bays, bare shell — Rs.1,08,143 a square foot of carpet.
• Frontage band: Lodha Sea Face Rs.1.25 lakh (2025), Naman Xana Coastal Road Entry Point Rs.2.45–2.53 lakh (2025–26). Asking on this road today is Rs.2 lakh and above.
• Declared above the government valuation, and the developer paid the Rs.3.4 crore of stamp duty himself.
• Bare shell — fit-out sits on top. At 79 per cent efficiency the effective rate on built-up area is about a quarter higher.

• Fifteen homes in a thirty-one floor tower — one home per two floors.
• That is the whole intra-plot density, and it is the lowest unit count of any tower this size in the portfolio.
• Twelve duplexes are for sale and three go to the two occupants of the demolished building under decrees of the Bombay High Court, at floors 16/17, 20/21 and 24/25 — not, as is usually assumed, the lowest floors.
• The sixty-one 'tenements' on the sanctioned table are not sixty-one households: forty-six of them are marked sections INSIDE those same fifteen duplexes, twelve reserved as surplus area for the housing authority and thirty-four as tolerated or protected structure area, drawn within a single red border on each plate with one entrance, one internal staircase and one internal lift and no partition between them and the living room.
• They record how the built-up area was earned.
• What the plot does not have is ground: the recreational open space is 181.53 square metres, the building occupies effectively the whole site, and thirteen levels of parking sit beneath the homes.

• Fifteen duplexes: twelve for sale, three rehoused (floors 16/17, 20/21, 24/25).
• The 46 'tenements' on the sanctioned table are marked SECTIONS inside those same duplexes — 12 reserved as housing-authority surplus, 34 as tolerated or protected structure area.
• One red border, one entrance, one internal staircase and one internal lift per plate — there is no partition between the marked areas and the living room.
• Recreational open space 181.53 sqm. Thirteen parking levels sit beneath the homes.

• The seaward half of the outlook is about as protected as Mumbai gets: the road, the promenade and then water, with nothing that can be built in between.
• Landward the immediate neighbours are all low — four storeys north, four east, two south — which is pleasant now and is also the risk, because this very building is the proof that plots on this frontage redevelop to nearly two hundred metres under the same regime.
• The north can in principle be taken by the tower already standing three hundred and forty metres east, and the due south by the Lodha and Imperial stock three hundred and fifty metres down the road.
• What softens it is the plan: with no east-facing habitable rooms and the priced aspect pointing west, the arcs most exposed to change are the ones the apartments care least about.
• The approvals require land vacated by the setback line to become public street and the lines to be demarcated on site, but state no dimension, and no development-plan extract is in the file.

• One minute from the gate to the coastal road.
• That is the strongest access reading in the Worli set, level with the tower a few plots along on the same frontage and against three minutes for the property one row back and twenty-six for the mill-land estates inland.
• The building fronts the seafront road directly, so the entry is effectively at the door.

• The kitchen sits on the external face on every plate that draws one, with a deck immediately outside it and a separate service duct and service passage off the core.
• There is a confirmed exterior air path rather than a recirculation-only arrangement, which at this price is the answer you want and not the one you usually get.

• Three lifts of a little over two by two and a half metres — and one of those is the fire lift — plus a service elevator, serving a stack of forty-six landings from the third basement to the thirty-first floor of a building that tops out near two hundred metres.
• Because the parking is self-park, residents arrive at a bay on any of thirteen levels and call a lift from there, so the lifts carry the parking load as well as the residential one.
• Across the luxury speed and capacity band the model returns waits of forty-three to fifty-six seconds — grade B at the very top of the band and grade C everywhere else.
• The constraint is the number of cars, not the plate.
• No lift speed or capacity is stated in any sanctioned or municipal document; the brochure's claim of fourteen feet a second sits inside the band modelled but verifies nothing.

• Undetermined rather than adequate.
• The municipal approval requires hydraulic engineer remarks before the plinth, compliance with the water no-objection before further certification and final water no-objections before occupation — but attaches no tenement number to any of them, makes no reference to the water-adequacy provision, and states no per-capita or daily figure.
• So the delta cannot be computed, and the question is sharper here than the raw numbers suggest: the sanctioned table counts sixty-one tenements where the building holds fifteen homes, so whichever figure the water clearance is sized against materially changes the answer.
• That is a hole in the record, not a clean bill.

• Thirteen levels of covered parking — three basements and ten podium decks — and a ramp that climbs all of them, fifty-one metres long over a three-metre rise, a gradient of about one in sixteen and a half.
• There is no car lift anywhere in the drawings and no mechanical, puzzle or stack system, confirmed on the sanctioned sections.
• So a resident drives to their own bay, which is the top of the ladder.
• And the provision is generous: 107 bays against a requirement of 81, for FIFTEEN homes — roughly seven a home, which is why the registered agreement can allot ten to a single duplex without straining the building.
• What pulls it back is height and detail rather than supply.
• Thirteen levels is a long climb with no lift to fall back on; the agreement puts all ten of that apartment's bays on the tenth podium, the highest deck; each bay is 13.75 square metres, consistent with the municipal minimum width rather than a wide one; and the agreement says nothing at all about the right to install a charger at a private bay.
• The whole stack sits nine metres below the lowest apartment, so no bedroom shares a wall with a ramp.

• 107 four-wheeler bays against a requirement of 81 — for fifteen homes.
• A ramp climbs all thirteen levels at about 1 in 16.5. No car lift, no mechanical system.
• Each bay 13.75 sqm — the municipal minimum width, not a wide bay.
• All ten bays of the one registered allotment sit on the 10th podium, the highest deck.
• No parking is adjacent to any habitable room.

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.

• A society of fifteen, of whom twelve will have bought.
• Three duplexes go to the two occupants of the demolished building under court-decreed terms — one of them a private company rather than a family — and they become owner-members on the same footing as any buyer.
• So the mix a purchaser is joining is twelve HNI households and three rehoused parties, in a building where each home takes a whole floor pair and shares only the lobby and the lift core.
• The ticket range is wide by design, from 176.92 square metres of carpet at the bottom of the building to 573.83 at the top, and the one registered sale went to a family group of four at Rs.56.71 crore with ten car bays.
• The developer retains the right to sell the residual floor space and every unsold apartment after the society is formed.

• Twelve buyers, three rehoused parties — one of the three is a private company, not a family.
• Each home takes a whole floor pair; the only shared space is the lobby and the lift core.
• Ticket range 176.92 to 573.83 sqm of carpet. One registered sale at Rs.56.71 crore.
• The developer keeps the residual floor space and every unsold apartment after the society forms.