Rustomjee Crescent

• The land is held by Crescent Co-operative Housing Society, not by the developer — Keyvihar Realtors builds as the society's constituted attorney, and the certificate to build says as much ('this permission does not entitle you to develop land which does not vest in you').
• A top-tier firm, Wadia Ghandy & Co, has certified the chain and described the existing 'Crescent' building it replaces (two wings, 62 flats).

• Three things keep the score mid.
• First, the tenure is Government Class 'C' with a small annual levy running since 1971 — not clean freehold — and it must be carried through to the new society.
• Second, the registered development agreement that sets out the members' area-share and the conveyance timetable is not in the record, so the entitlement split cannot yet be read.
• Third, the only independent check on encumbrances is a CERSAI search that failed outright, leaving the 'no charge' position on the developer's word alone.

• And the litigation is not what the portal says.
• The developer's own title report bundles a litigation search against the society that shows the suit the portal calls 'Closed' still live, with a late-2024 hearing, plus several further society matters.
• None of this is a defect in the chain — it is a set of open questions on the land under the flat, and all of them are answerable with documents that should exist.

• Start with the good news: the whole marketed building is inside the sanctioned envelope.
• The area statement shows the floor-space index fully consumed at 4.0 and all 19 levels approved, so nothing here is being sold above what is sanctioned, and being at basement stage is simply early, not a red flag.

• The risk is where the entitlement comes from.
• This is a clubbed SRA scheme, and the Proforma A imports about 5,951 sq.m — roughly 36% of the plot's permissible area — from a separate slum scheme at Majas in Andheri.
• The file holds nothing about that scheme.
• On clubbed schemes the authority commonly releases the sale building's certificates in step with the rehabilitation component, and bars occupation until the rehab side gets its own certificate; whether this approval carries that condition is not confirmed here, so it is stated as the open question it is rather than as a fact.

Layer on a two-year-old developer company with no completed-project record of its own and a possession date already moved from December 2029 to April 2030, and delivery becomes the pillar to interrogate before anything else.

• A note on how to weigh this: with a clubbed scheme, ask WHERE the rehab (PTC) component stands, not just whether it is promised.
• If a builder has already DELIVERED the rehab with its own occupation certificate, the extra floor-space is fully earned and your building's OC answers only to your own tower's progress — the safer position.
• Here the rehab is only COMMITTED on paper and not yet confirmed delivered: it is being provided separately at Majas and your tower's OC for roughly a third of the sale flats is tied to its handover.
• Worst case, a finished tower waits on it; best case, you move in under a part-certificate.
• Between two otherwise-identical offers, the one whose rehab is already delivered is the lower-risk buy.

• The filings are present and reasonably up to date, but they don't hold together.
• The portal prints the commencement certificate as covering 19 floors when the certificate itself reaches only the top of the basement; the litigation is marked closed when the developer's own title search shows it live; the map coordinates are zero; and three engineer's cost certificates by the same engineer give three different project totals within nine months, two of them naming the wrong planning authority.

None of this changes what is sanctioned, but it means the record cannot be taken at face value — the certified extent, the litigation status and the cost line all have to be read from the underlying documents rather than the portal fields.

• Unusually, the brochure sells a smaller building than the record: '18 floors, 68–80 units, 3 apartments per floor' against a sanctioned 19 levels, 160 units and about six per floor.
• The gap is the rehab component — 61 of 160 homes rehouse the existing members, and marketing counts only sale stock.

• It also does not name the actual developer company (Keyvihar Realtors), credits a different design consultant than the sanctioned drawings, and prints a possession date the portal has already pushed back four months.
• The '1.2-acre estate' claim, at least, checks out.
• The mark against it is omission, not exaggeration.

The view cannot be scored properly, because the MahaRERA record carries no coordinates at all (latitude and longitude are both zero), so the raycast that would test each side of the building has nothing to run on.

• What can be said is contextual: Pali Hill is a low-rise, height-controlled enclave of bungalow plots and mid-rises, and a 19-level tower is likely to clear most of that stock on its upper floors and enjoy a leafy, partly-open aspect.
• The registered boundaries are roads to the north and south and neighbouring plots to the east and west.
• But this is a preliminary read only — the coordinate has to be resolved and each side's front-row heights checked before any of it seals.

• The floor plate is a butterfly, or pinwheel: about six apartments splay off a single central core at angles, which gives every home an outward aspect but costs efficiency — there is more external wall, and more articulated envelope, per unit of carpet.
• The layout-efficiency engine puts the plate at about 67%, below the Bandra set average.

• It is not all cost: the homes share one common lift-and-stair lobby rather than each carving out a private foyer, and decks and servant rooms are provided.
• The efficiency figure is measured off the drawing and should be confirmed against a clean plan before it is treated as final.

• There is no restricted-common-area problem to flag.
• The six-or-so apartments on each floor share one common lift-and-staircase lobby — the safe configuration — rather than each flat claiming a carved-out 'exclusive' foyer of the kind that has drawn enforcement elsewhere.
• The decks are disclosed, separately-stated open areas you actually buy.

The registered agreement is not yet in the Bandra West set, so the final exclusive-area wording is unconfirmed; but nothing on the sanctioned plate reads as an enclosed common area being sold as private.

• There is simply no price in the record: no registered agreement, no consideration figures in the sold/booked disclosure, and no price in the brochure.
• So pricing cannot be scored.

• Pali Hill and Bandra West are a premium micro-market, so a frontage comparable band needs to be fed (and then re-used for the next property here), and the cash-component question asked, before any read.
• When a price does land, remember two adjustments: the homes are likely a bare shell, and a ~67% efficient plate turns a carpet rate into a materially higher built-up one.

• Two 19-level wings put 160 households on about 1.2 acres at a fully-consumed floor-space index of 4.0 — roughly one home per 30 square metres of land, with only about 390 square metres of recreational open space.
• It is a hard-worked plot.

• Sixty-one of the 160 homes rehouse the existing society's members in the same two wings the buyers occupy, sharing the lobby, the lift core and the society.
• Because those members are the original Pali Hill flat-owners rather than slum tenants, the co-habitation is a density fact more than a mixed-strata one — but the density itself is real.

Pali Hill is one of Bandra's most established residential enclaves — low-rise, height-controlled, green and stable — which is a genuinely good surrounding to be handed at possession and five years on, and it carries the score.

What is not yet done is the pipeline check: with no coordinates and no in-corridor registry for Bandra, any same-road redevelopment that might change the immediate surroundings has to be surfaced by a field or web pass.

Bandra West has decent arterial connections — the Western Express Highway, the Bandra–Worli Sea Link and the extending Coastal Road — but the actual mid-morning drive time to the nearest coastal-road entry is a field measurement that has not been supplied, so this is a preliminary read.

• The kitchens sit toward the central core, each with an adjacent service-duct shaft and a small utility, which usually means an exterior air path exists.
• But on several homes the kitchen abuts the lift-lobby core, and an openable external kitchen window could not be confirmed on the sanctioned drawing at the resolution available.

So it is neither a clean pass nor a fail — an air path is probable but unproven. Worth confirming on the plan or on a site visit whether each kitchen's utility opens to the outside.

• Each wing runs two dedicated passenger lifts plus two fire lifts for about six apartments across thirteen habitable floors — roughly 78 families.
• The lift-wait model returns a comfortable Grade B on the two passenger lifts alone, and better once the fire lifts share duty, so waiting is not a concern at this scale.

• The project declares a hydro-pneumatic supply, a sewage treatment plant, an organic waste composter and a basement rainwater tank, and the approval references a fire-department No-Objection Certificate.
• What has not been read to a number is the water-adequacy check — the sanctioned hydraulic-No-Objection Certificate population against the 160-home demand — so this is a preliminary read.

• This is honest self-park, and the sanctioned sections settle it beyond doubt: a continuous ramp descends from the ground through all four basement decks, with cars drawn parked on every level and on the ramp slope itself.
• There are no car lifts, no stackers and no puzzle racks anywhere in the Bandra West set, and nothing sits on the residential floors — so you drive down to a covered, dedicated bay rather than queueing for a machine.
• The only mild demerit is depth: five parking levels (the ground plus four basements) means a little more time on the ramp than a shallow garage, but there is no lift dependency to penalise.

• The supply is generous rather than tight.
• The portal records about two covered car spaces per home, and the sanctioned plan actually proposes more bays (429) than its own requirement (286); the sanctioned statement also provides visitor bays, even though the portal's visitor column reads zero — the drawing governs.
• What is left to check is contractual, not mechanical: confirm your bay is deeded to you rather than merely licensed, ask whether you can install a private EV charger, and push for the lowest deck nearest the ramp, since developers usually fix bay allotment only near completion.

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 community here is the original Crescent society's members — affluent Pali Hill flat-owners being rehoused — together with the new buyers, in one society across the two wings.
• Crucially, the slum-rehabilitation part of this SRA scheme is discharged off-site at Majas, so there is no slum-rehab strata mix on this plot.

• That makes the mix relatively benign.
• The one caveat is that a redeveloping society brings its own internal dynamics, and the live inter-member litigation in the title report is a reminder of it.