Nakoda Mehta Sunshine Heights

• The land does NOT vest wholly in the developer: M/s Mehta Developers owns C.S. 466/467/487 and builds on C.S. 465 (K Merchant Construction), 488/489 (Harihar Himatlal Mehta) and 490 (Harshad Krishnakant Deo) under three Development Agreements (10/11/2016, 10/02/2017, 19/10/2019) that are recited in the title report + the agreement Schedules III/IV/VII and are NOT in the dump - the area-share split, rehab obligation and conveyance timetable live only there (FINDING 5, C06/C09).
• Shukla & Associates (FORMAT-A, 02/06/2022) opine title clear and marketable, but it is a 2022 short form that pre-dates the 2023 Capri mortgage and the 2023/2026 amendments, and it carries NO devolution for C.S. 486 (which is in every approval and under the 2020 CERSAI charge) while Proforma A prices an untitled C.S. 485/A under 30(A).
• Encumbrance: the portal 'Financial Encumbrance: No' is contradicted by a live Capri Global Capital mortgage (Deed 31/03/2023 BBE4-5077-2023 + Supplemental 24/04/2023 BBE4-6762-2023, promoter letter 04/05/2023) AND a 2020 CERSAI charge on C.S. 466 & 486 (FINDING 2, C10).
• Cess/33(7) with MHADA NOCs recited not enclosed; no executed lease surfaced, so C03 renewal-premium appears N/A (re-test if the Estate No-Objection Certificate shows a lease).
• Title re-read (file 01, 14pp): the 2022 Shukla FORMAT-A covers C.S. 465,466,467,487,488,489,490 (Annexures A-F) and NOT 486, NOT 485A - confirmed.
• Ownership per report: 466/467/487 owned by Mehta Developers; 465 = K Merchant Construction (DA 10/11/2016 reg 6727/2016); 488&489 = Harihar Himatlal Mehta; 490 = Harshad Krishkant Deo.
• The Development Agreements ARE recited inside the title-report annexures but the DA INSTRUMENTS are not in the RERA filings (Rexray field).
• NO supplemental/updated title report exists in the standalone file; the agreement annexure title report is the same 2022 FORMAT-A.
• Useful boundary facts: Mayureshwar Tower is on C.S. 484 (west of 465); Mumbadevi Co-op Hsg Soc building is on C.S. 464 (south of 465).

• Delivery scores CERTAINTY, not build progress (C61).
• Positive: the marketed 39-floor product sits INSIDE a sanctioned envelope with FULL Commencement Certificate to the 39th (FCC/5/Amend 02/06/2026) - no floors above sanction, no future-scheme floor area (FSI) contingency, and ~85.71% of the superstructure is already up.
• Risk overlays: (a) TIMELINE - Form 1 (as-on 02/04/2026) reads 85.71% superstructure but 0% on every finishing activity (sanitary, lifts, lobbies, tanks, external plaster, fire-fighting) against a 09/04/2027 date - finishing a 39-storey bare frame in ~12 months (FINDING 10); (b) REHAB-GATED OC - on a 33(7) cess scheme the sale OC is gated on completing & handing over the 196 rehab tenements co-habiting A & C (C11); (c) split ownership under three ABSENT Development Agreements whose rehab/possession/area-share terms are unread (C06, GAP); (d) the Capri Global charge over the project.
• Take the floor count from the sanctioned layout / full Commencement Certificate, not the portal's stale plinth-Commencement Certificate (C31/C34).
• This is NOT a 'selling unapproved floors' delivery-certainty flag (the full Commencement Certificate landed); it is a finishing-timeline + rehab-gating read.
• Sibling 'B' Wing (P51900011526, the rehab wing) reads as COMPLETE / topped out on Google Maps satellite+street, ~22-24 floors (counted off the image) - materially shorter than the 39F A&C sale wings, consistent with a rehab wing.
• This de-risks the physical rehab build, but the 196-tenement VACATION & formal HANDOVER (which gates the A&C sale OC) is still to confirm.

• Unlike a clean portal, this record disagrees with the documents repeatedly (FINDING 8, C07/C60): (a) 'Financial Encumbrance: No' vs a live Capri Global mortgage + a 2020 CERSAI charge (FINDING 2); (b) the Parking Details table renders ALL ZEROS - degenerate, treat as ABSENT and fall back to the layout (C60), never read a shortfall out of it; (c) 'Commencement Certificate Issued up-to (No. of Floors): 44' misstates the true full-Commencement Certificate-to-39th position (the portal's own Commencement Certificate copy is the stale FCC/2 plinth letter); (d) 'Total No. of Rehab Units: 0' while 196 units are booked 'Land Owner/Investor Share (Not For Sale)' - the rehab count reconciliation (C52); (e) latitude/longitude both 0.000000 (no geocode).
• Two status-form filenames name a different project ('Arihant Tower'), suggesting the promoter's filing process mixes projects (FINDING 9).
• Reconcile each per the folder rule (document/drawing wins) and record the staleness as a compliance finding.
• The RERA legibility/compliance SCORE is a hand-fed [REXRAY-FIELD] value, not computed here.
• RERA legibility from Rexray field intelligence: the LAYOUT / plan disclosures are quite detailed and good; the TITLE documentation should have been more detailed (thin 2022 FORMAT-A, no 486/485A flow) - so legibility is layout-strong / title-weak.
• Numeric legibility score still a Phase-3 hand-fed [REXRAY-FIELD].

• [MKT] source: complex-level brochure (Mehta Group, houssed CDN, 'Khadilkar Street, Girgaum', covers A/B/C wings) + one marketing typical-floor-plan .webp - claims only, never used to verify a fact (rule 1).
• Candidate lines to test in Phase 3: (a) the 'Nakoda Mehta' brand carries a party ('Nakoda' = the C.S. 467 land vendor) that is not a promoter (FINDING 5); (b) a landmark-residence framing vs a 63%-rehab 33(7) scheme where sale flats co-habit the rehoused cess tenants in the same wings (FINDING 1); (c) any marketed view vs a dense Girgaon infill whose low floors are walled by unknown-height abutters and whose sea aspect (if marketed) is upper-floor-only and unverified; (d) '180 covered car parks' vs a fully mechanised no-ramp automated system that saturates on the retrieval model (FINDING 3).
• Locality itself is honestly marketed (Girgaum = registered locality; no C04 laundering).

• OUT-OF-CORRIDOR (Girgaon), so View is PRELIMINARY by construction.
• The subject was injected read-only into a temp run store (C43; master untouched, per outputs/discovered_p78.json) and raycast -> composite band 7, but that is a CORRIDOR-SCALE CEILING only: the authoritative registry holds no Girgaon obstructions, so the engine finds nothing near-field (the sole object returned is P31 Marathon Monte South 2.27 km NE, clearing above floor 67 = above this 39F tower's own top, irrelevant).
• The REAL determinant is the near-field: a dense field of low-to-mid-rise cess buildings + scattered similar-height redevelopment towers across narrow local streets on all four sides, of UNKNOWN height - NOT entered as obstructions (C36: an unknown height fabricates a 150 m wall) - which wall the LOWER floors on every arc.
• The podium is MODERATE (first home ~20 m, 4th floor), so low-floor obstructions are NOT neutralised (this is not a C27/C48 deep-podium case).
• The upper floors (clearing the surrounding mid-rise) may open toward the W-SW Arabian Sea (Girgaon Chowpatty / Back Bay / Marine Drive ~0.6-0.9 km) - a real potential asset but a web/field-verify item (not web-generated here; Girgaon is a low-rise field with no single dominant tall blocker).
• Directional map: N/E/S walled at low floors by immediate abutters (heights PENDING); W-SW possible upper-floor sea; all PENDING-verify.
• Field intel (Rexray field): not a views project.
• Tower C - east walled by Mitani Sky9 (east face is the lift/stair bank anyway), south walled by own B wing + Mayureshwar (C.S. 484) to ~22-24F, so a usable south/sea aspect only above ~22-24F; unit 2 (2BHK) west-facing into dense fabric.
• Tower A - south at risk from cleared C.S. 463/464.
• Brochure 'open ocean views' misleading except perhaps top floors, and unprotected.
• VIEW HELD until Sky9 (P51900078858) + Earth Enclave are in the Girgaon set.
• Raycast readout: C - S walled by own B wing below ~floor 23, NE/E threatened by Mitani Sky9 (125m) + Earth Enclave (124m) to ~full height, N/SE/upper open; unit-2 (2BHK) W-only is dense (engine shows open only because west low-rise unmodelled).
• A - SW walled by B below ~floor 23, N threatened by Sky9, S at-risk from cleared C.S.463/464.
• Not a views project; upper-floor open aspect on limited arcs only.
• Stays REVIEW/DRAFT (out-of-corridor).

• Layout-efficiency engine returns 84.0% on a base of 84% with no penalty flags: the governing 'C'-Wing typical plate (sheet 12/16, rendered 150 dpi) is a compact rectangular ~31.44 x 13.15 m double-loaded plate, 4 flats around a central core (3 lifts + fire-evac lift + 2 staircases + 2.16 m corridor), a regular envelope and no butterfly circulation - the four carpet areas 83.03/84.19/95.25/97.00 sqm against ~256 sqm plate BUA give ~85-88% carpet efficiency on the individual flats.
• Mid-market 3BHK product (carpet ~890-1040 sqft).
• Category REVIEW until confirmed against the registered the agreement carpet-vs-built-up schedule and a Rexray field intelligence plate confirm (field-confirmed).
• Portfolio context: Crown 82%, SeaKrest 86.6%.

• The governing 'C'-Wing plate shows four flats per floor around a CENTRAL common core (3 lifts + fire-evac lift + 2 staircases + a 2.16 m passage) drawn as common area, with no per-flat enclosed exclusive-use foyer carve-out visible -> no bucket-3 RCA finding on the plate.
• Four flats per floor is the MULTI-flat configuration where BMC exclusive-lobby risk would rise IF an exclusive foyer were carved out - but none is drawn here.
• Decks / service slabs / chhaja are normal separately-stated areas (bucket 2, not a finding).
• C01 detection aid (diff the marketing key plan against the RERA/approved layout) is PENDING the registered the agreement First/Second Schedule carpet-vs-saleable breakup.

• The registered first-sale the agreement (doc 17888/2026) gives a real rate: total consideration Rs 2,56,56,000 for RERA carpet 88.35 sqm / 951 sqft = ~Rs 2,90,390/sqm (~Rs 26,980/sqft) carpet, ~Rs 24,570/sqft on the 97.00 sqm built-up; stamp-duty market value Rs 2,56,17,081 corroborates.
• Girgaon is OUT-OF-CORRIDOR with NO comparable in the Rexray set on this frontage - so per the [REXRAY-FIELD] rule the Girgaon/Khadilkar-Rd price band is a hand-fed input to be fed and ACCUMULATED for the next Girgaon subject.
• Name the frontage (Khadilkar Rd / Girgaon 400004), do not re-charge risk scored elsewhere (delivery/title/parking) (C21).
• Outstanding: the market comparable band, the cash-component question (surface it wherever the registered rate sits below the local band), the rate card across the unit mix, and bare-shell vs fit-out.
• Reference unit ~Rs 2.57 cr sits BELOW the Rs 10 Cr finding gate. the agreement value (Rexray field Q): the registered first-sale the agreement consideration is Rs 2,56,56,000 (~Rs 27,000/sqft carpet) for a 34th-floor C-wing unit.
• VIEW-PRICING INTERACTION: Tower C's south/sea aspect only opens ABOVE ~22-24F (clearing B wing + Mayureshwar), so a view premium is defensible only on high-floor C units - the registered reference sale sits above that threshold; low/mid C floors are view-blocked and should not carry a view premium.
• Market band + cash component still [REXRAY-FIELD] PENDING.

• DCPR 33(7) cessed-building redevelopment of 'Vohra (Bohra) Building' (486), 'Gurukrupa' (466), 'Ratan Niwas' (467), 'Kshatriya Bhuvan' (487) and a Bhuvan on 490.
• Of this registration's 311 units, 196 (63%) are the Land-Owner/rehab share (Not For Sale) and 115 are the sale component (60 sold + 55 unsold) (FINDING 1).
• The Proforma-B tenant-list sheets name each existing cess tenant, their MHADA-certified existing carpet, the DCPR-2034 rehab carpet and the exact flat & FLOOR they take in A or C - i.e. the rehoused tenants are INTERLEAVED into the same A & C sale wings, sharing the lift core, lobby and podium (C02/C51 same-building co-habitation -> feeds CCI), sharper than a separate-rehab-tower scheme.
• Very high density: proposed BUA 20,744.80 on a net plot ~2,663.71 sqm = floor area (FSI) 7.79 consumed.
• The 382-tenement Proforma figure is an ALL-WING total (incl.
• B Wing, FINDING 4).
• The rehab obligation / area-share / corpus terms live only in the three absent Development Agreements (GAP, C06).

• Static [GOV]/[REXRAY] from the block plan + boundaries: a mid-block Girgaon infill on narrow local streets (S Khadilkar Rd, W Sadashiv St, E Appasaheb Sathey Marg, N adjoining plot), in a dense low-to-mid-rise cess quarter where many neighbouring plots are themselves under cess/33(7) redevelopment (the ghar.tv/mappls search shows a field of small Girgaon redevelopment projects) - so multi-year concurrent construction on abutting plots is the nearest density/footfall/nuisance layer, and the four-side abutment means the immediate neighbours can redevelop taller over the hold.
• On-ground SRD status / the 2032 area outlook pipeline is a hand-fed [REXRAY-FIELD] item for Phase 2. base_elevation 0 (flat coastal plain).
• Very dense on the ground: active cess/33(7) redevelopment all around (Mitani Sky9 on the adjacent plot plus more rehab schemes and taller towers coming), lanes still very narrow, and ~15 min just to exit Girgaon in rush hour.
• Multi-year concurrent construction on abutting plots is live, not hypothetical. field-confirmed negative density.

• RHARC today (11am-weekday drive time from the Khadilkar Rd / Girgaon plot to the nearest coastal-road / Marine Drive on-ramp; the Coastal Road corridor is ~0.6-0.9 km west) is a hand-fed [REXRAY-FIELD] value; not in the dump (the RHARC engine needs a Google Maps key, not run at intake).
• RHARC = 26 min (11am weekday to nearest coastal-road on-ramp), field-confirmed; the first ~15 min is often just getting out of the dense Girgaon lane network in rush hour.

• The governing 'C'-Wing plate (sheet 12/16, rendered image) shows the kitchens (2.75 x 2.75) positioned on the building perimeter with adjoining service slabs / 0.45 m chhaja and external walls - a confirmed exterior air path -> KVF PASS.
• Caveat (REVIEW): at 150 dpi some core-side kitchens are not fully resolved; confirm every kitchen's openable-window / exterior path on a higher-resolution plate.
• The flag is a rule sealed off the plan; the reference unit ~Rs 2.57 cr sits below the Rs 10 Cr gate so even a WARN would be a livability note, not a HIGH finding.

• Lift core read from the governing 'C'-Wing plate (sheet 12/16): 3 passenger lifts + 1 fire-evacuation lift + 2 staircases.
• Lift-wait engine across the luxury speed/capacity band (39 floors, 4 flats/floor, f2f 3.0 m, h80 ~110 m) -> interval 37.9-48.3 s, Grade B-to-C across the band -> SEAL conservative Grade B/C (robust B on the faster/smaller-car band, C only on the slow+large combination).
• Reference sale unit ~Rs 2.57 cr sits below the Rs 10 Cr finding gate, so EWT is a livability note, not a price-gated finding.

• The the building approval/HE-No-Objection Certificate water unit-count vs the registered unit count is not extractable from this dump - the building approval amendment LETTERS are present (337/6/Amend) but the HE-No-Objection Certificate water condition set is not, and the /5//6 plan sheets are absent.
• Form-1 Table-B water-supply / sewerage / RWH items read 0% (yet to start).
• The basement draws four sewage treatment plant units + fire/domestic/RWH tanks (sheet 2/16).
• PENDING the building approval water / HE-No-Objection Certificate counts. the building approval check: the amended-plan the building approval letters (337/4/Amend 05/09/2023 and 337/6/Amend 18/02/2026) carry only the generic condition 'Extra Water/Sewerage charges at A.E.W.W.
• D-Ward Office' - NO HE-No-Objection Certificate water unit-count.
• The base the building approval (03/11/2012) conditions are referenced but not enclosed.
• WAF water-count still PENDING (need the base the building approval / HE-No-Objection Certificate).

• Sealed off the rendered basement sheet (2/16) + section (14/16), read as images (rule 5b): parking is a FULLY MECHANISED automated system - two 'CAR PARKING SYSTEM' stacker blocks (6.95 x 7.30 and 6.95 x 9.80) drawn with cars stacked in elevation, a car lift and a 2.50 x 2.35 two-wheeler lift, and NO vehicle ramp anywhere (the earlier 2015-era set drew conventional bays with drive arrows - the mechanisation was introduced by the later amendment, FINDING 3).
• ANCHOR = can you drive to your bay?
• NO (machine-stored, lift-fed, no drivable ramp) -> tier E, alongside Imperial Worli (fully mechanised ~2.5-3).
• The retrieval engine (180 four-wheeler bays, 311 families, 2 machines, ~19-level stack, cycle 90-180 s, peak 0.30-0.50) returns Grade A-to-D and SATURATES in the band -> SEAL conservative Grade D [whole-system-jam risk], retrieval-depth modifier -1 and a finding.
• Proforma A: required 175 / provided 180 (+30 two-wheeler) - a 5-space margin that depends on the machine working.
• The portal Parking Details table is ALL ZEROS = degenerate/ABSENT (C60), not a shortfall.
• Softening caveat: 196 of 311 are rehab tenants (cess rehousing) with typically lower car-ownership, so the real-world peak is milder than a 311-family model - a Phase-2 field refinement.
• Reference unit ~Rs 2.57 cr < Rs 10 Cr gate, so the E-tier/saturation finding is a livability note (MEDIUM), not a price-gated HIGH.
• RAMP CHECK (Rexray field Q): confirmed from the sanctioned basement (sheet 2/16) + section (14/16) - there is NO vehicle ramp anywhere on the plot for any wing.
• All car parking for all three wings is machine/lift dependent: the mechanised stacker tower (Proforma A: 'CAR PARK BETWEEN A AND C', 319.26 sqm) plus a small separate 'CAR PARK B WING' (111.06 sqm), both mechanised.
• So A and C have no independent self-park ramp - tier E stands.
• FIELD-CONFLICT to reconcile: the Proforma A BUA table labels the mechanised block 'between A and C'; Rexray field intelligence observes it on-ground sitting between A and B - a wing-lettering/orientation mismatch worth pinning on the site plan (does not change the tier-E anchor).

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.

• Community composition needs the price band + unit mix.
• This is a 33(7) cess SOCIETY-style redevelopment where 196 of 311 units are rehab (existing cess-building tenants) and the sale flats CO-HABIT the rehoused tenants in the SAME A & C wings (shared lift core, lobby, podium) - a same-building rehab-cohort mix a sale buyer joins (C02/C51 co-habitation -> CCI), sharper than a separate-tower rehab scheme.
• PENDING the pricing band + the DA rehab-tenant profile.