Sarkars El Dorado T1

• The land under this building does not belong to the developer and will not belong to the buyers' society for a long time.
• The municipal corporation owns one of the two survey parcels, with a co-operative society recorded as its lessee under a ninety-nine year lease of 1972; the Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay own the other.
• The construction permission itself says so in terms: 'This permission does not entitle you to develop land which does not vest in you.' When conveyance comes, it comes as a transfer document from the slum authority to the society within three months of the occupation certificate - not as a conveyance from the developer - and the agreement makes it subject to deductions for any area not in the developer's possession, any setback or reserved land, and any public amenity still to be handed over.

• The title clearance itself is a real piece of work and should be credited.
• Kanga and Company issued it on 27 February 2025 on the back of a nineteen-page report on title, a thirty-year search of the sub-registrar's records that found no adverse entries, a company-registry search that found no charges on the developer, and public notices in two newspapers that drew no claim or objection.

• The development agreement of February 2022, the irrevocable power of attorney of the same date and the amended development agreement of January 2025 are all unregistered. The solicitors record it; nothing in the file says what follows from it.
• This 3,969.82 square metres is an unsevered part of two much larger parcels of 81,720 and 13,028 square metres. It has no property card of its own and no independent search key.
• The society recorded as lessee on the municipal card is 'Aadarsh Nagar Co. Op. Housing Society Limited'. The society running this scheme is 'Worli Adarsh Nagar Sagar Darshan CHS Ltd'. The report does not reconcile the two names.
• Several registered deeds the search threw up were set aside on the developer's own information that they do not relate to this plot, rather than on independent verification.
• The solicitors expressly exclude zoning, index, reservations, setbacks and developability from their opinion, and cap their liability at their own fee.

• Three suits are live.
• The one that matters most is over a shop on this plot: the son of a man on the eligibility list ran a general store from it until May 2024, the developer and the society then asked him to hand it over and take rent, and he sued.
• His injunction was refused in July 2024, the authority ordered him out within thirty days in December 2024, and the suit was still running when the title report was written.
• A fourth matter, a 2023 High Court petition by Janta Colony residents held ineligible who alleged the eligibility list had been 'prepared in collusion with the Municipal Corporation', was thrown out in March 2024 on a filing technicality rather than on the merits, and their appeal to the grievance committee has no recorded outcome anywhere in the file.

• This scheme was approved on 22 February 1996 - the date is embedded in the authority's own file number.
• The first developer built nothing between 1996 and 2006 and was removed.
• The second held it from around 2007 and, in the title report's words, 'failed to undertake redevelopment and make any satisfactory progress for around 13 (thirteen) years', before the authority cancelled its appointment in December 2020.
• The society appointed the current developer in January 2020.

• What the current developer has done since is real: it reimbursed the outgoing developer's certified expenses, paid the housing board Rs.4.61 crore and a Rs.64.22 lakh improvement fee, obtained a Letter of Intent in 2022 and a revised one in 2023, took the plans through four rounds of approval to the governing sanction of February 2025, got a pollution-control consent and had the plot demarcated by the survey office.
• None of that is nothing.

• What it has not done is build.
• Its own architect's certificate for the quarter to 31 March 2026 records excavation, basement and plinth at a hundred per cent, and then ten podium levels at zero, twenty superstructure slabs at zero, and every one of the thirteen common-facility lines at zero.
• Its engineer certifies Rs.24.71 crore spent of a Rs.210.63 crore estimate - 11.7 per cent - with Rs.185.92 crore still to go.
• Its own finance disclosure records no lender: 'NA' against sanctioned amount, disbursed amount and mortgage alike.

• The declared completion date is 31 January 2030 and the agreement's own schedule targets an occupation certificate in March 2030.
• From a plinth that means ten podium levels, two service floors, nineteen residential floors and a separate nineteen-storey rehabilitation wing - which has to be handed to the authority before the last quarter of the sale area can be certified - inside about three and a half years, paid for by equity and by selling the eighteen to twenty homes still unsold.

• The developer's disclosed track record is two projects, both in Palghar district: one completed in Nallasopara in November 2023 and one due in Vasai in December 2026.
• No complaints, no warrants, nothing revoked - a clean record, and no comparable precedent.
• This is a twenty-nine storey composite tower on government land in Worli.

• Take the good first, because it is unusual.
• The quarterly architect and engineer certificates are current to March 2026 and the accountant's annual statement is dated July 2026, so nothing is stale.
• There are no complaints, no appeals and no non-compliance applications against this project.
• And the three court matters listed on the regulator's page match the developer's own litigation declaration and its sworn affidavit exactly - a disclosure test this project passes and many do not.

Then the four fields that are wrong, on the one page a buyer is told to check:

• It states 43 sanctioned floors. The sanctioned section and the developer's own declaration together count 33 - one basement, a ground floor, ten podium levels, two service floors and nineteen numbered floors. Nothing in the file explains the other ten.
• It publishes a latitude and longitude that plot about thirteen kilometres away and offshore.
• It reports 'Total No. of Rehab Units: 0' for a composite building whose sanctioned tenement statement counts 239 and whose Letter of Intent counts 183 rehabilitation plus 56 project-affected, which sums to exactly the same 239.
• It reports eleven homes sold; the developer's own inventory disclosure reports eight sold and one booked.

• One more, and it is the sharpest.
• The approval condition that governs this plot requires the developer to put a clause in the buyer's agreement stating that the building is planned with deficient open space and that buyers will not complain about it.
• The word 'deficient' does not appear once in the seventy-eight page agreement the developer uploaded.
• The comparable condition about not misusing the refuge area is carried - twice.
• So the test is not whether the agreement carries the waiver the developer benefits from; it is whether it carries the warning the authority ordered, and here one is in and the other is out.

• The last two come from a test this file can run because the registered instrument is here to run it on.
• The agreement the regulator publishes is the developer's model; the agreement actually executed and registered on 30 March 2025 is a materially different document.
• The payment schedule moves - the second milestone rises from a fifth of the price to thirty-five per cent, and it falls due on a calendar date sixty days after registration rather than on any construction event, while the plinth milestone drops from fifteen per cent to ten.
• Eleven clauses appear in the registered version that the published model does not contain, among them one disclaiming the marketing material a buyer was shown, one letting the developer name the forum that will hear a dispute, and one passing any stamp duty a later authority demands to the buyer.
• None of that is unlawful and none of it is hidden from the person signing; the point is narrower and it is a disclosure point.
• Someone reading the portal copy to understand what they are about to sign is reading the wrong document.

• And the carpet areas on that page are not carpet areas.
• On the one home where the registered instrument lets both numbers be seen, the figure published as RERA carpet is the carpet plus the exclusive deck added together - which is also the contradiction the instrument carries against itself, printing 242.29 square metres in one annexure and 274.73 in another for the same flat.
• Neither number is wrong on its own terms; only one of them is the number the statute means.

• The marketing is six full-page lifestyle photographs published on 1 November 2025 - a couple looking at the sea link, a woman walking from a private jet - with no floor plan, no floor count, no price, no possession date and no amenity list.
• Measured against the record, not one claim in it is contradicted, and three things in it are better than the Worli-Prabhadevi set normally sees.

• The site address is printed candidly as 'VB Worlikar Marg, Janata Colony, BPT Colony, Worli' rather than upgraded to a premium road. That is the opposite of the address laundering the portfolio usually finds.
• The relationship between the brand and the registered developer is spelled out on the page: the project is developed by the group 'through its sister concern', and both are named.
• The view claim carries an explicit disclaimer that views may vary by unit, that continuance is not warranted, and that future development nearby may alter them. Given what is planned 154 metres away, that is materially accurate.

• The failure is what is left out, and it is the defining fact about the property.
• Across six pages there is no mention that this is a slum rehabilitation scheme; that the building is a composite structure whose other wing holds 239 rehoused and project-affected households over nineteen floors on the same acre; that twenty-five shops will trade at its base; that the ground-floor garden and the sewage treatment plant are shared with that wing; or that the home is handed over as a bare shell with the specifications schedule marked 'not applicable'.
• When the single most important thing about a property is the thing the advertising never mentions, silence is the misrepresentation.

• Start with what the raycast returns on the aspects this building is actually sold on, because it is unusually clean. Both apartments put the living room and the principal deck on the NORTH edge - settled by the north arrow on the plan annexed to the registered agreement - and the west apartment takes a secondary west deck.
• On north, and on west, the reading is zero per cent blocked.
• Nothing built today obstructs either, from any floor.

• That is partly a podium and partly a design decision, and both deserve credit.
• Ten levels of car parking and a service floor sit between the ground and the first apartment, so the lowest home here is 33.8 metres up - about the roof of an eleven-storey building - and every object in the mapped surroundings within seven hundred metres tops out below that line.
• They are invisible from every apartment, not merely from the upper ones, which removes the low-floor view discount a buyer would normally pay.

• And the scheme's own nineteen-storey rehabilitation wing has been put where it costs the homes nothing. It occupies the east and the south - and those are exactly the two elevations the plate gives no deck. The east edge carries a 0.35-metre weather shade over windows and no balcony; the south edge is kitchens, dry yards, the lift core, both staircases, the firemen's lift and the smoke lobby.
• The west edge, by contrast, carries two balconies, which is why the west aspect is a real one.
• So the rehabilitation block faces no living room and no deck anywhere in this building.
• The residual is a floor-choice note rather than a finding: secondary bedroom windows on the east, on the eleventh to the seventeenth floors, look across about thirty-three metres at a 58-metre rehabilitation block, and clear it from the eighteenth..

• Which leaves one question, and it is the whole of the view.
• The north and north-west come back empty for a reason: the land between this tower and the water is a low-rise settlement, Janta Colony, and it is a slum-rehabilitation scheme in its own right. This project's own title papers put that beyond doubt - Janta Colony residents who are not members of this society were held ineligible for this scheme, ordered in April 2023 to vacate within ten days, had their High Court petition dismissed in March 2024 on a filing technicality rather than on the merits, and their appeal to the grievance committee has no recorded outcome anywhere in the file.
• Those are the households sitting across the arc the hero photograph sells.

• What that scheme would build is not a guess, and the comparable is not borrowed from another road - it is this building.
• The same regulation, on a plot of the same size, on this frontage, produced a 110-metre tower for sale and a 58-metre wing for rehousing.
• Run the front row at the rehousing height and both priced aspects drop one band: it would clear above the eighteenth floor here.
• Run it at this building's own height, or anything more, and they drop two - it walls about forty per cent of the north arc and two-thirds of the west at every floor, with no floor left to rise above it.
• The developer's own view disclaimer is unusually candid and deserves the credit: it does not warrant the continuance of any view or guarantee the impact of future redevelopment.
• Read the other way, that is the seller declining to carry a risk it can see.

• Today - north and west open at zero per cent blocked, from every home, on every aspect that is priced. Real, and worth paying for.
• If the front row rebuilds at rehousing height - it clears above the eighteenth floor; the eleventh to the seventeenth look into it.
• If it rebuilds at this building's own height or above - every floor, on the arc both living rooms face.
• The second dependency - 1,481 square metres of the developer's own plot, thirty-seven per cent of the site, is marked 'kept open to sky', and nothing in the approvals makes it permanently unbuildable.
• What would settle it - the sanctioned height of the scheme in front. Nothing else moves this score.

• Say the trade-off out loud, because it runs both ways: the same ten parking levels that lift the first home to 33.8 metres are the ten levels that cost the parking score its climb penalty.
• One asset, two attributes, and it should not be paid for twice.

• Measured off the sanctioned typical plate.
• The gross floor is 48.56 by 25.41 metres, and the drawing's own calculation nets it to about 668 square metres after voids, projections, staircases, lifts and ducts.
• The plan then prints two figures as 'RERA C.A.' - 363.28 square metres on the west apartment and 274.73 on the east. Those are not carpet areas. The registered agreement proves it on the one home where it gives both numbers: 242.29 square metres of RERA carpet plus a 32.44 square metre exclusive deck, which is exactly 274.73 added together.
• The first read of this leaf divided 638 straight into 668 and got 95.5 per cent, which would have put this at the very top of the portfolio and was simply wrong.

• The plate is sold as two half-plate homes and the deck divides with them, so each home carries half the plate's deck - and the east half is documented at 32.44 square metres in the agreement itself.
• That puts the plate's total deck at 64.88 and its true carpet at 573 against 668 of net built-up, or 85.8 per cent before penalties.
• Two points come off for envelope irregularity, because the plate is a long parallelogram whose ends follow the wedge shape of the plot. 83.8 per cent. That sits between Rustomjee Crown at 82 and Sea Krest at 86.6 - the upper half of the Worli set - and it is a materially better reading than the 82.6 this leaf carried in draft.
• An independent check corroborates it without settling it to the square metre: the labelled balcony boxes on the plate sum to between about 62 and 75 square metres depending on how two labels sitting under the sub-registrar's seal are read, and 64.88 falls inside that bracket.

• What the plate shows reads well and is not in doubt.
• A central core with four passenger lifts and two staircases; both apartments entered directly off a single 14.35-metre lift lobby with no internal corridor to lose; kitchens of about 4.6 by 2.5 and 4.4 by 2.7 metres, each opening onto a full-width dry yard rather than venting inward; living rooms of roughly 9.1 by 5.8 and 8.0 by 5.9 metres, each with its own north deck.
• Two homes to a floor off one lobby is an efficient arrangement and the efficiency figure reflects it.

• One thing the number cannot capture: the home is contracted to be delivered as a bare shell, and the schedule where the specifications should be listed reads 'Not applicable'.
• What the buyer receives is the plate, not the finish.
• On the registered rate, the effective cost of built-up area works out at about Rs.47,100 a square foot - and the whole fit-out sits on top of that.

• On the narrow question - is common area being sold as private - the answer is clean, and it is now clean on a registered instrument rather than a draft.
• The schedule separates 'RERA Carpet Area' from 'Exclusive area being deck/balcony' as two distinct lines with two distinct figures, so the deck is a disclosed open area the buyer buys rather than a lobby dressed up as a room.
• The per-floor lobby of 51.43 square metres is disclosed as a common amenity, free of index, to be handed to the society.
• The word 'exclusive' appears nowhere in the instrument as a grant of enclosed lobby or foyer space.
• And the configuration is the safe one: one home to the plate from the eleventh to the seventeenth floor, two sharing a single lobby above, rather than several flats each carving out a foyer.

• What is not clean is the area definition, and it sits inside the same document. Annexure A states the RERA carpet area at 242.29 square metres and the deck at 32.44.
• The floor plan annexed to the same agreement, Annexure I, prints on that same home 'RERA C.A. = 274.73 SQ.MT.' Those two figures reconcile exactly - 242.29 plus 32.44 - so the larger one is the carpet plus the deck, reported as if it were carpet.

• The regulator's sold-and-unsold disclosure uses the larger figure too, and so, quietly, did the stamp valuation, whose built-up area of 302.29 square metres is 274.73 grossed up by ten per cent.
• The schedule's treatment is the compliant one; the plan's label and the public record are not.
• The consequence is a rate: take the price against the figure on the plan or the portal and you compute about Rs.34,800 a square foot; the rate on the carpet actually being bought is about Rs.39,500 - nearly twelve per cent higher.
• It also runs through every derived figure - the total carpet across the twenty-nine homes, any efficiency computed from it, and any comparison a valuer or a lender makes later.

The question to put is a specific one: which figure is the RERA carpet area, why does the regulator's page publish the other, and what is the rate per square foot on the correct one?

• There are now two prices on the public record and they say the same thing.
• The agreement registered on 30 March 2025 conveys a four-bedroom home on the twenty-eighth floor for Rs.10,30,00,000 against 2,608 square feet of RERA carpet with a deck of 349 square feet stated separately - about Rs.39,500 a square foot of carpet.
• A second developer sale registered on 9 February 2026 conveys a home on the twenty-fourth floor for Rs.15,00,00,000 against 3,910 square feet, which is exactly the figure the sanctioned plate prints for the larger apartment on the same carpet-plus-deck convention.
• Like for like, that is Rs.38,363 a square foot against Rs.34,832 eleven months earlier - a rise of about ten per cent - or roughly Rs.42,100 a square foot once the deck is taken back out.

• Name the comparable set by frontage rather than suburb, because that is where pricing scores go wrong.
• This is inland Adarsh Nagar and Janata Colony, about half a kilometre off Dr Annie Besant Road.
• It is not Worli Sea Face on Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan Marg and it is not the Senapati Bapat Marg mill-land estates, and those three price differently by multiples.
• Against its own frontage this rate is unremarkable rather than cheap.

• The benchmark that actually matters is annexed to the instrument itself. The government's ready reckoner values the March-2025 home at Rs.11,24,70,956 - about Rs.43,100 a square foot of carpet - and the stamp duty was paid on that higher figure rather than on the price.
• So the first sale registers 8.4 per cent below the state's own valuation of the same home, and the second, eleven months later, still registers about 2.3 per cent below the same rate per square foot.
• A registered price under the reckoner is not an ordinary market outcome: the reckoner is the floor for duty purposes, a sale below it carries tax consequences on both sides, and a developer accepting it is accepting a cost.
• One such sale is an anomaly. Two, eleven months apart, is a pattern - and the pattern is the shape a transaction takes when part of the consideration does not travel in the instrument.
• The amount is not documented and cannot be.
• It is the single question that can unwind the apparent discount entirely, and it belongs in front of the seller.

Two adjustments sit on top of the headline and should never be folded into it:

• The home is a bare shell. The agreement delivers it without internal finishes, fixtures or fit-outs, and the specifications schedule reads 'Not applicable'. The entire fit-out of 2,608 square feet is the buyer's.
• The charges schedule adds about Rs.16 lakh of club, legal and gas charges - and then, at possession, eighteen months of building maintenance, sixty months of club maintenance and eighteen months of property tax as up-front deposits, of the order of Rs.42 lakh plus tax.
• With duty and goods and services tax the all-in is roughly Rs.11.9 to 12.0 crore before fit-out.

• So is the gap value or a warning?
• A discount is only good news where it maps onto identified compromises a buyer can see - and here several do: a building still at plinth, a 2030 handover, a first-time high-rise developer, 239 rehoused households in the same composite structure, a licensed rather than deeded car park.
• But those are already scored under delivery, title and surroundings, and they are not charged again here.
• What is charged here is the integrity of the number itself, and on that the record now shows a pattern rather than an accident.

• The ratio is the headline and it is stark: 239 rehoused and project-affected households, seven community units, twenty-five shops and six shop-homes share this 0.98-acre plot and this one building with twenty-nine apartments - about 8.2 to one.
• The construction permission is stamped 'COMPOSITE BUILDING' on its face.

• The drawings are better than that ratio sounds, and it matters.
• Every one of the 239 sits in the rehabilitation wing and every one of the 29 sits in the sale wing.
• No buyer shares a lobby, a lift or a floor with a rehoused household.
• The eighteenth-floor club, pool, gym and 588 square metre garden are reserved to the sale wing in terms - the agreement says the rehabilitation wing's residents 'shall not be entitled to use the Common Amenities'.
• This is a shared compound, not a shared building in the sense that usually causes trouble.

• What is shared is the ground, and the agreement is explicit about it: 'the RG garden and area of the Project Common Areas shall be utilized by all residents ... in the said Building i.e. the Slum Wing and the Free Sale Wing'.
• That garden is 289.65 square metres - the statutory eight per cent minimum.
• The sewage treatment plant is common to both wings, and its maintenance charge is payable 'irrespective of the case whether the treated water is used or not'.
• Also on the plot: a thirty-five car mechanical parking tower for the rehabilitation wing, an organic waste converter and a substation.

Against all of that, thirty-seven per cent of the site is currently marked 'kept open to sky / vacant' - which is genuinely generous for a Mumbai redevelopment, and which nothing in the approvals makes permanent.

• The part that can be read off the drawings was already heavy.
• This is a censused slum under redevelopment.
• Its ground floor will carry a twenty-five shop frontage plus a creche, a welfare centre, three society offices, a women's enterprise centre and a health centre, all opening onto the same road that is the only way in or out - and the sanctioned layout dimensions that road at between 10.2 and 13.1 metres.
• The sewage treatment plant and the organic waste converter sit on the plot itself.

• The part that is coming is heavier.
• The nearest corner of a roughly thirty-four acre estate redevelopment measures 178 metres away on the verified coordinate, and its footprint spans 163 degrees of the southern outlook - Rexray carries it at tender stage with an assumed envelope of two hundred metres, nearly twice this building's terrace.
• Within a kilometre and a half sit the Worli police-quarters redevelopment, the BDD chawl redevelopment and three further schemes assumed at three hundred metres.

• And field intelligence adds the scheme the documents never named. The settlement between this building and the water is a slum-rehabilitation scheme in its own right - separate land, separate developer, its own rehousing question, and residents whom this project's own title papers record as having been held ineligible here and ordered to vacate.
• So the honest picture for someone taking possession around 2030 is not a tower beside a building site.
• It is a tower inside a quadrant of simultaneous rebuilding: their own composite building still finishing, a thirty-four acre estate starting to the south, and a slum scheme going up between them and the sea.

• One mitigation is worth stating rather than buried.
• The same wave of redevelopment is what will lift this micro-market, and a buyer here is early to it rather than late.
• The cost is the decade in between - and the specific risk is that one of those three schemes is on the arc this home is priced for.

• Four minutes at eleven on a weekday morning, gate to the nearest coastal-road entry, measured on the ground rather than modelled.
• Nothing else in the portfolio comes close: the Prabhadevi tower half a kilometre east measures ten minutes to the same entry, a Jacob Circle plot twenty-five, a Lower Parel estate twenty-eight.
• The site sits just inland of the coastal corridor and the run west reaches it before the city's congestion has anywhere to build.
• This is the single best thing about the address, and it is the kind of advantage that does not decay - the road is built.

• Two documented things keep it off a nine, and both are about the first two hundred metres rather than the journey.
• The only vehicular access is V.B.
• Worlikar Road, which the sanctioned layout dimensions at between 10.2 and 13.1 metres wide, and part of that width is a setback the developer has still to hand over to the corporation.
• Two site entries feed onto it past what will be a twenty-five-shop kerbside frontage serving the rehabilitation wing - on a composite building carrying 239 rehabilitation and project-affected households, twenty-nine apartments and thirty-one commercial units, all using the same road.

• The forward reading is worse than the present one, and it is worth stating plainly rather than scoring twice.
• A thirty-four acre estate redevelopment begins 178 metres away, and the settlement across the marketed aspect is a live scheme of its own.
• A buyer taking possession around 2030 shares that ten-metre road with the construction traffic of both.

• Both apartments on the sanctioned typical plate have their kitchen set against the outside wall, opening onto a dry yard the same width as the kitchen itself: about 4.6 by 2.5 metres onto a 4.6 by 1.5 metre yard in one, and 4.4 by 2.7 onto 4.4 by 1.5 in the other.
• That is a confirmed path to outside air, not a kitchen relying on a duct and a fan.

• A small corroboration from an unlikely place: the undertaking the buyer signs forbids fitting a window, marble sill or jamb into the kitchen balcony or the kitchen duct opening.
• The developer wants those openings to stay open.

• The agreement lists the lift bank in full, which is unusual and useful: four passenger lifts of sixteen persons, one stretcher lift of twenty-six, one fire-evacuation lift, all at 2.5 metres per second.
• Run on this building's real level table - nineteen residential floors, two homes to a floor above the amenity level and one below it, floor-to-floor 3.9 metres rather than the usual assumption of 3.1 - the waiting model returns a forty-two second interval, which is Grade B.

• Swept across the whole plausible range, from the disclosed 2.5 metres per second up to the four metres per second this price band normally assumes, and from thirteen to sixteen passengers a car, it never leaves Grade B: thirty to forty-two seconds throughout.
• Twenty-nine families over nineteen floors is simply not a heavy load for four cars.

• Two qualifications.
• The disclosed speed of 2.5 metres per second sits below the four-to-six band this portfolio treats as normal for a 110 metre stack - it is not a problem at this population, but it is a specification worth knowing you are buying.
• And the same bank serves the ten podium parking levels and the basement as well as the homes, so it stops more often than a residential-only bank would; with one of the four passenger lifts out of service the interval goes to fifty-six seconds, which is Grade C.

• Water adequacy is not scored here, and the reason is specific rather than general.
• The base municipal approval of November 2022 - which is where a water condition and the household count it is granted against would sit - is not in the folder; the governing amendment letter of February 2025 carries six conditions and none of them concerns water; and there is no hydraulic engineer's no-objection anywhere in the Worli set.

• What the drawings do show is a suction tank and a submersible-pump water tank annotated at second-basement level, and an overhead tank above the terrace.
• What is being served is 239 rehabilitation homes, 29 apartments and 31 commercial units on one municipal plot - with the municipal corporation as both the water authority and the landowner.

• Ask for the base approval with its full condition list and the hydraulic engineer's no-objection with the connection size it grants and the unit count it grants it against.
• It is a two-document answer.

• Read off the drawings rather than the clause, because the clause never tells you the mechanism.
• The sanctioned plans draw a single curved ramp, six metres wide and thirty metres long at a one-in-ten slope, running from the ground up through the podium and back down, with individual perpendicular and angled bays off six-metre driveways.
• There is no stacker, no puzzle and no car lift anywhere in the sale wing.
• You drive to your own bay, which is the best of the access categories.

• The provision is generous and worth spelling out: the sanctioned statement requires fifty-eight bays for twenty-nine homes plus six visitor bays, and proposes ninety-six covered bays - about 3.1 owner bays a home, comfortably above the Mumbai norm of one fewer than the bedroom count.
• Seventy two-wheeler bays sit alongside them.

Four things pull the score down from there:

• Ten parking levels is a real, daily climb, and unlike the comparable towers in this portfolio there is no car lift as a fallback if the ramp is blocked.
• The ramp is a single two-way rather than two dedicated one-ways, which is the worse circulation pattern on a busy morning.
• The bay comes as a right to use, not a deeded space. Level and number are left blank and allotment is at the developer's discretion, with unallotted bays going to the society when the developer decides.
• On electric charging the agreement says only that the developer 'may be required to provide electric charging points ... in some parking spaces', and that the buyer bears the cost. There is no right to a charger at your own bay - on a 2030 handover, that is a live question, not a future one.

• The registered agreement adds the bay dimensions, which is more disclosure than most instruments in this portfolio give - and not all of it is good news.
• The home on the record takes three covered bays: two at 2.50 by 5.50 metres and one at 2.30 by 4.50, all with 2.75 metres of clearance.
• Three bays for a four-bedroom home is at the Mumbai norm.
• The third bay is the problem: narrower and shorter than the other two, against a working benchmark of a 2.5 metre minimum with a large car wanting 2.7 to 3.0.
• And the level is still blank - the agreement leaves 'on ______ level podium' unfilled in both places, and the car-park plan annexed to it is a generic '2nd to 5th podium plan' with no bay marked on it at all.
• A buyer who has signed and paid does not yet know whether their bays are on the first podium level or the tenth, which on a stack with no car lift is a difference of nine levels of ramp, twice a day.

• Two things it is not.
• No parking level sits against a habitable room of this wing - all ten are below the service floor and the first home, so there is no noise or vibration exposure of the kind that structurally damages a building of this type.
• And the thirty-five car mechanical parking tower on this plot is the rehabilitation wing's, not these homes'; the approval requires the developer to indemnify the authority in case that car lift fails and causes injury.
• Ask for written confirmation that the bay allotted is a ramp-served podium bay and not a place on that tower - the developer's own allotment letter lists 'mechanical car parking unit' among the possibilities.

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.

The building itself is a small, high-net-worth address: twenty-nine homes of between 145 and 435 square metres of carpet, marketed as four and five bedroom, with whole-floor single apartments on the eleventh to seventeenth and an amenity deck contractually reserved to this wing alone.

The mix around it is the other half of the picture, and a buyer should weigh both: 239 rehoused and project-affected households in the same composite building, a twenty-five shop frontage at the base, and a ground-floor garden the agreement says both wings share.

• Two governance points follow from the drafting.
• The sale wing's society forms only after fifty-one per cent of its homes are booked, and with nine to eleven sold that trigger has not been reached - so there is no residents' body yet and no timetable for one.
• And the developer 'may opt, at its own discretion, to form a separate organization of the Slum Wing', which means a single organisation covering both wings remains possible on the document as it stands.
• Ask which it will be.

One pattern worth a question rather than an inference: eight of the nine transactions on the developer's own disclosure fall in a thirteen-day window immediately after registration, six of them on a single day - and seventeen months later, eighteen of twenty-nine homes remain unsold.

• Two things Phase 2 adds.
• A third developer sale registered in February 2026 shows the tower still transacting - slowly - seventeen months after launch.
• And, confirmed in the field: the rehabilitation wing occupies the east and south of the plot, so it is what fronts the road, with twenty-five shops at its base and the twenty-nine-home sale wing behind it.
• Inside, the wings are properly segregated - separate lobbies, separate lifts, the eighteenth-floor club and pool reserved to buyers.
• But the building this address presents to the street, and the frontage a buyer drives past every day, is the nineteen-storey rehabilitation block.
• Density is scored separately under intra-plot density; this is the address-quality half of the same fact, and it is the reason the arrival will not read the way a ten-to-fifteen crore home usually reads.