Rs , sq ft

Removed from Shortlist

My Shortlist ()
View All Shortlist
Keep track of your shortlisted properties here. Shortlist a property to get started.

Home > Forum > Bangalore > Yelahanka > Legal > Proposal from NCC Urban to merge both projects

Proposal from NCC Urban to merge both projects

Q: Hello Prospective Buyers of Meadows II,- There is a move to merge Meadows (old project) with Meadows II (new Project ) which NCCUIL is proposing and this is legally not feasible. In such an eventuality, your new common facilities like swimming pool, club house etc could be shared by residents of 318 apartments of old project, thus diluting the maintenance apart from fair wear and tear.I am sure that logically no prospective buyers of new project would wish to share their assets with another alien project .Incidentally, both are two independent projects having separate approvals from statutory authorities, registered sale deeds and DOD also specify separate common areas, common assets etc. Also is it not logical to merge a 4 yrs old project with a new project ?. Prospective owners of Meadows II need to ponder to arrive at a logical conclusion.

Reply

Also see discussions for
Bangalore Yelahanka NCC Meadows II Legal Legal in Bangalore Legal in Yelahanka Legal in NCC Meadows II
Replies (34)
1
DEED OF CANCELLATION

Section 13 of Specific Relief Act 1963, deals with the cancellation deeds. There may be certain written documents, which by their nature or by operation of law or by some other reasons are void, violable. Such documents if left as they are and outstanding may harm the interest, right, titles privileges of some party. Such person may institute a suit, praying for cancellation of such written documents, and the court in its discretion if thinks it proper may order for Cancellation of such written document.

There may be documents of contract, which are void as they are against Law Public Policy or violable if they are vitiated by fraud coercion or other similar grounds. The parties to the document may also cancel such documents by mutual consent without referring to the court. An agreement for sale, lease, mortgage, license, partition, may be cancelled by the parties with consent of all parties.

But at times, the matter of cancellation of document may not be
C R Babu


The above pertains to taking written consent by NCCUIL , which are against Act 16 of KOFA. These are void /voidable like allowing merger of facilities of MeadowsII with different project and vice-versa. In such case Section 13 of specific Relief Act 1963 is applicable and self explanatory. Since the entire section does not fit in I just was able to put only the relevant part.
C R Babu, Apartment Resident 
10th April 2014


DEED OF CANCELLATION

Section 13 of Specific Relief Act 1963, deals with the cancellation deeds. There may be certain written documents, which by their nature or by operation of law or by some other reasons are void, violable. Such documents if left as they are and outstanding may harm the interest, right, titles privileges of some party. Such person may institute a suit, praying for cancellation of such written documents, and the court in its discretion if thinks it proper may order for Cancellation of such written document.

There may be documents of contract, which are void as they are against Law Public Policy or violable if they are vitiated by fraud coercion or other similar grounds. The parties to the document may also cancel such documents by mutual consent without referring to the court. An agreement for sale, lease, mortgage, license, partition, may be cancelled by the parties with consent of all parties.

But at times, the matter of cancellation of document may not be
C R Babu, Apartment Resident 
10th April 2014


Dear Babu,
NCCUIL is tricking the owners by making them to sign the consent letter during the registration. The lawyers are not explaining about the document until the person asks explicitly. I had 4 guys getting their property registers on the day mine was scheduled and 3 of them said they signed the doc coz they did not know what it is. are these also voidable? IF so how?
Sunil, Apartment Resident 
13th October 2014


2
You are doing very good sir. Good to know the update.
nitin kumar


3
Some good news- Today, I was fortunate to meet BBMP commissioner in connection with some other issue pertaining to our Trust on lake development, and brought the topic of the two projects and the construction of ongoing wall between the two projects. He assured that without his permission the builder has no right to demolish ,and that he asked for a petition from some of meadows and meadows II owners accordingly so that he will not accord permission if the builder seeks to bring down the wall. He referred sec 199 of Karnataka muncipal act. Don't have to bother about the silent majority and if the go as per law no one on earth can stop us from prevailing the truth and justice.
Kindly get in touch with me for further action.
C R Babu


4
First it is not phase 1 or phase 2, but Meadows and Meadows II ,as I have all the statutory documents, photos of big signboards staring from BIAL to mekri circle, the pamphlets distributed in realty fairs .The builder has not anywhere mentioned as phase 1 or phase 2. So I do not understand how Mr,Kameshwar refers as phase 1 / 2 ,which certainly has legal implications. Request produce any single document where its conceived as single project with two phases. The builder can number the building in any fashion like A-D , H or ZYD but that does not give legal sanction . I am amused to know that Meadows II has its own DOD even without OC or formation of your association. What is DOD? After the occupation of complex by sufficient buyers, the builder is obliged to call for General body mtg under KOFA 1973, elect MC , draft DOD and bye-laws in terms of KAOA1972 get it registered under apartment ownership act. DOD implies that complex & assets have been handover over by the builder to assoc
C R Babu


5
Hello Mr.Nitin & Ramakrishnan- I don't make stories ,nor exaggerate but put up only facts .Please see comment at 7 above,which is verbatim of the proposal from NCCUIL. Simple if the die hard merger groups feel that I am defaming them with false allegations , then I challenge them to file a defamation suit against me.The basis of telling I don't like children is not understood. I have brought up my daughter who is already married and settled. Secondly, not taking part in complex festivities is one's personal choice and is not binding. I have my own circle of like minded friends and also member of two best clubs which I use for my recreation. Therefore, mixing my personal life with merger issue by Mr.Kameshwar is uncalled for and not understood. Also his statement that I am spitting venom may be in the context of ' Truth is bitter' and the bitterness may be referred to venom.
C R Babu


6
Mr.Kameshwar- You rightly said I am a proponent of staying in a small well managed community. Each individual has its own criteria for selection be it apartment complex, car or mobile phones etc.I am sure you you too would have had some criteria before buying your apartment. I finally inked the deal only after carefully checking all the statutory documents that meadows will remain as small complex. Now forcing me to accept the Dikhat of the few is against the guarantee signed by the builder. If I was told earlier in clear uncertain terms that the next project will be merged ,I would have gone elsewhere . Having spent all my life in stand alone apartments at Mumbai I preferred same for peaceful living . Home is place where after hectic day's schedule one would like to relax , spend time with family and not convert the complex into political arena. I am a senior citizen who still believe in values one of which is' learn to live within your means and don't grab/loot others things
C R Babu


7
Hello All,
I totally agree with Mr. Ramakrishnan. Merging the two complex will bring loads of issues in terms of facilities and maintenance. On top of that not considering the opinion of Meadows 2 owners is horrible.

Smaller complexes are better managed like smaller states :)
nitin kumar


8
Dear Mr.Kameshwar - Thanks for bring about facts from other side of the coin. I am certainly open for exploring possibilities but my main concern is that Meadows II owners are kept outside this whole process. Meadows II owners should clearly know what we gain/lose out of this and if it is worthwhile doing it. I have been voicing certain concerns to NCCUIL with respect to merging and I want those to be addressed clearly. It is quite difficult to just sit back and assume other parties ( NCCUIL/Meadows I owners ) will take care of all our concerns. The last thing we would want is a badly merged complex creating more troubles than any use for both Meadows II and Meadows I . If that happens going back as independent complexes would be at the expense of lot of bitterness among residents and would be much better we remain independent from day-1.
Ramakrishnan


9
Dear Mr Nitin and Mr Ramakrishnan, Further to my appeal to consider all sides of the issue, here are some of my thoughts. The whole issue arose because NCCUIL kept the issue hanging of whether these are two separate projects or separate phases. The two areas are contiguous, buildings look similar, they are named in sequence ours is A-D and yours are start from H. But since the DoD of phase I is in place it can't be changed. So we are not even talking of changing the DoD because that would require 100% agreement of owners of both sides. So, please don't be misled that your DoD is being changed behind your back.
So, what exactly is this merger ? The exact shape is still being debated. It could be sharing of facilities and management, there are possible economies of scale, social interaction, festivals etc. Because of the ambiguous nature of these two projects even the solution is more to do with coming to an understanding than a legal issue.
Regards
Kameshwar Rao C
(Owner Phase 1)
Kameshwar Chesetti


10
Mr Kameshwar - please do not misguide the owners of Meadows II. First you seem to be either ignorant or choose to ignore about developments in our Meadows. I too bought the apartment to enjoy peaceful living in a small and self contained complex which is being threatened. Why should I poison them and what do I gain. Please be honest and upright to put facts and figures. Certainly, a well educated person would have to answer following-
a) Why was MC forced to conduct 2 interactive meetings and what for?
b)What does the sub committee report say.
c) What is the meaning of Mr puspendra statement in Adda which I quote' Bigger Club house' indoor badminton court' cricket pitch etc- Is it for watching with thumb sucking ?
Incidentally, both gentlemen of Meadows II along with few other are in regular touch with me and you are not aware how Marketing office has duped them. Yes I take head on with those who cheat or indulge in illegality. If you are honest / upright then why have fear.
C R Babu


Mr Babu, Its well known that you are a proponent of small communities with high walls, no children and no festivities - thats your preference, I respect that. Whether MC was forced or not is again your opinion - MC called the meetings to get resident views and disseminate information. All I am saying is let the residents of Phase II get other viewpoints also and come to their decisions - instead of you biasing them by pretending to be a crusader. One of recommendations could be that Phase I residents will not access 'Bigger clubhouse', I am fine with that.
Kameshwar Rao
Kameshwar Chesetti,  
12th March 2014


11
Dear Mr Nitin and Mr Ramakrishnan, I am a resident of Phase I and we have our own facilities which we hardly use - we are not out to spoil your brand new facilities. The intent was only to have a social relationship with Phase I - we have our own facilities, the common area per resident of ours is more, we are well to do educated people with character - why would we simply want to rob or steal your facilities ? Average resident wants a peaceful life. Commander Babu is just out to poison your minds just like he is badmouthing Phase II people among Phase I. People who talk bad behind backs can do that for anyone. We have never said merger, but there is value in association. You can discuss with the residents of Phase I and if you still think we are bad people then I will keep quiet. I am sending this email with some fear because Mr Babu's poison will be directed at me now. God bless !!
Regards
Kameshwar Rao
(Resident of NCC Meadows Phase I)
Kameshwar Chesetti


12
Ramakrishnan- The obligation under Act 7 of KOFA is not mandate of landowner ,but each and every buyer of apartment. If the builder violates the sanctioned plan then he has cheated you and you can file a case under sec 419 and 420. Just because land owner has majority of flats does mean he can be a mafia. I was banned from this forum but have surprisingly got back. We have media with us and they are waiting for the script. I am waiting for outcome to publish same.
C R Babu


13
Hello All,

Today there was an interactive meeting in NCC meadows attended by about 48 owners including Management Committee over the vexed issue of surrendering our rights to Meadows II and back to NCCUIL. Despite repeatedly mentioning that legally it is not possible, some members (about 25 to 30) who believe in Kangaroo court and Kalph panchayat are bent on resorting to illegal ways of merging. I strongly believe in law and justice and have faith in courts.

I was not present in today's meeting but I was given to understand that about 25 odd pro-group members resorted to unruly behavior and intimidation forcing the MC members to call for hurried SGM circumventing the bye-laws. As per bye-laws there are only two ways to call SGM

a) Owners can ask for SGM if 51% of members which is 160 in case submit a signed memorandum to President.

b) President of the MC can call for SGM subject to majority of MC members approving the same for administrative reasons or emergency situatio
C R Babu


14
Dear Mr.Nitin - Please send your Tel no and e-mail address to my c_babu@hotmail.com
C R Babu


Hi Nitin,
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1409213635999350/

You can reach me through email at s.ramakrishnan@gmail.com

I spoke to Mr. Ramu from NCCUIL Marketing as well last weekend and they are not taking any firm stand legally ( though at the background they are seemingly bent on merging projects , nothing else can explain their intent to build a compound wall and still being ok to rip it off ) . When I said this has to go through Meadows II owners - he said they can get absolute majority from Meadows II as they claim the land-owner who is in buddy terms with NCCUIL has almost 160+ flats , so they need another 100 odd which they claim they can easily get. I don't know legally if this is true that one single person if he owns so many flats can contribute to a majority vote. I am getting a legal opinion from my side meanwhile. I feel Meadows II owners should have a group formed by then to tackle this by the time we receive the official communication from NCCUIL.
Ramakrishnan , Apartment Resident 
10th March 2014


15
i could not find the FB group. please snd the link.
nitin kumar


16
Laws are on your side even if by deceit the Marketing Office have obtained your consent. Under what laws the builder can enforce ill legitimate conditions on the buyers when you have paid for your facilities. Today it is Meadows , and under same analogy any tom ,dick and harry can be made party to use your legitimate rights. Suggest you join together and take up in press this juicy article of fraud committed on you and let public at large know what NCC is all about. Also quoting KOFA 1972 Sec 16 which rules out all ambiguities you may proceed with WP in court ,and obtain stay order which may even delay the commissioning of the project.
C R Babu


17
I spoke to the marketing folks and the most irritating fact is that they claim Meadows II owners have no say and have to just accept what builder/Meadows-I association does. That is outrageous. It is our hard-earned money that is put in and we need to have a say in what is being done. After some heated discussions, the marketing person evaded legal questions and said I can talk to their lawyer. I think we need to have a group of Meadows II owners to have collective representation not just for this but for any future decisions. I've created a facebook group for the same ( Nagarjuna Meadows II ) . Meadows II owners, please join so that we can have collective representation.
Ramakrishnan


18
Today I heard a big joke which Mr.G.Venkat had used to lure some owners to join him in his en devour to take over the maintenance of both projects. He had agreed to maintain our property at Rs1.90/sft. Way back in Dec 2011 , he had demanded Rs2.55/sft and suddenly the change of heart to reduce to Rs 1.90/sft ,discounting inflation etc is not understood. How much have they charged from buyers of Meadows II for 2 years maintenance.? Is he going to subsidize from your collection towards Meadows expenditure.?
C R Babu


19
Also advise to owners of Meadows II. please do not get swayed by what the Marketing team says as they use all stunts to sell their product. Please spend sufficient time to go through all the statutory documents like KOFA 1972, National Buildinng code etc and do your home work thoroughly so that we should be able to drive the nail at the correct point when need arises.
C R Babu


20
Thanks to those owners of Meadows II for contacting me on the above and request some more join and form a group to jointly take up your cause. After all you have paid for the project and cannot allow others to trespass into your lawfully acquired property. Once you have sufficient strength we can seek an appointment with Mr.JSR Raju to iron out the lacuna and other deficiencies caused by Marketing office. As per KOFA 1972, which is the bible for development of the project and obligations of the builder /buyer till formation of association, you also have a right to know the particulars of the other prospective buyers which the builder must furnish if you legally demand. Also the property management team is required to maintain a separate bank account and disclose details of deployment when demanded by owners , which Mr.G Venkat would conveniently deny for obvious reasons.
C R Babu


21
For owners of Meadows II. I have checked up with an eminent lawyer about the merger issue. Though by deceit the Marketing office had taken in writing about the sharing of facilities ,yet as per para (f) of agreement for sale in Meadows II it is very clear that schedule A of the property will be held by all the apartment owners as co-owners.......... vest in the apartment owners to be used by all of them jointly and in common.
Therefore where do aliens from Meadows fit in. Also the wall between the two projects is as per approved sanctioned plan and hence the builder is obliged to build as the approved design and specifications in terms of 'KOFA act' as failure to do so may result in conviction and imprisonment.

For further information kindly get in touch with me on 9739307942 or c_babu@hotmail.com
Except for Mr.G.Venkat the top management of NCC is not interested in the merger issue as they are not into property management.
C R Babu


22
Yes the w

Pushpendra uprety
C 1003
29/12/13 01:37PM
Dear Team MC,

Per MC's last mail on the boundary wall issue, the same is not considered a priority by the MC, we have hereby submitted today an official request for SGM on the Boundary Wall issue to NMAOA's office Mr. Umesh.

As required, agenda of the discussion will be the Boundary Wall issue with meeting date for the 2nd Saturday of January 2014 i.e. 11-Jan 2014.

Umesh shall be sharing the cover letter and the orginal signed request from 12 owners (1 more added post the scan) with Mr. Subhash or Mr Reddy today.

In the cover letter we have asked for the following (within 24 hrs.):

1. Confirmation of receipt of the letter

2. Confirmation of acceptance/denial of the request for meeting

3. Grounds for denial for meeting (if not accepted)

As for the Corpus issue, we look forward to MC's and other owner's active participation on the subject.

thanks,

Pushpendra

C-100
C R Babu


Owners of Meadows II ,do not be content with boundary wall construction as the crises are far from over. Please see the above as one active resident has been instigating few other members to force NCCUIL to merge both projects. Logically, you have paid for the facilities which you rightly fully own and there is no reason why you should share with aliens from NCC Meadows. As owners of NCC Meadows II, its time you all unite together and force NCC to thwart such unscrupulous moves.
C R Babu, Apartment Resident 
4th January 2014


23
Went to meadows 2 last week and a wall is being constructed now to separate the 2 projects.
nitin kumar


Yes the wall is under construction. But the work is stopped for over a week and the move by the resident mentioned below is to gather as many owners as possible and coax the MC on 11/12Jan to press for merger. I don't know the mood of NCCUIL, but prospective buyers of Meadows II should not relax ,but make a combined effort to seek in writing from NCCUIL to ensure that your hard earned property is protected from encroachment at any cost. Please write a direct e-mail to Director NCCUIL at jsrraju@nccurban.com and urge him to give a commitment that both will be separate and independent projects separated by wall.
C R Babu, Apartment Resident 
6th January 2014


24
A few owners who own in Meadows and have also booked apartment in Meadows II have come up stating that they have nothing in writing from Mktg office to prove that Meadows II will be merged with Meadows. Please ask Marketing office to prove on record that both are combined project. As part of sales pitch they bluff according to the mindset of the customer.When I invested in Meadows I was clearly told that both are two separate projects and since I demanded documentary evidence they produced the same clearly mentioning that Meadows is a project with 4 towers each having 13 floors with 6 apartments in each floor with area of 4 acres and 14 guntas. Our Deed of Declaration which is registered with registrar office Malleaswaram also clearly states that Meadows is a complex with 318 apartments with 4 tower in an area of 4 acres and 14 guntas.
If it was combined project according to Mtg office then why should they send a proposal which is reproduced above ?
Rajendra Babu


25
I met the Marketing office on Sunday and according to them they have always told Phase 2 owners that its a combined project. And phase 2 owners will have no say in the decision of merging or not.
It is upto the Phase 1 owners, if they want to merge they will do so, otherwise they will crate a wall by december.
nitin kumar


Hi I was not told that...Its a combined project. I have purchased a flat in Meadows 2
Deepak J Nair, Apartment Resident 
6th November 2013


Hello Deepak .. even i was not told that its a combined project. They only told me based on the decision of owners we can either merge or keep it separate. But now they are telling it will be the decision of phase 1 association and not phase 2 owners. i think alll active owners of phase 2 should meet and talk to them incase they plan to merge. in my view keeping seperate association will be better and efficient. because in case they merge there will be only one association and there will be lot of trouble.
nitin kumar, Apartment Resident 
6th November 2013


26
Its good move from your end and please gather more prospective buyers in Meadows II. The marketing office has bunch of cheats and as part of sales pitch they give false assurances according to buyer's mood. Please insist in writing that they have no intension for any move to merge. Another important question is why is the construction of boundry wall between the 2 projects held up when the wall has already been constructed on other sides. Suggest address e-mail directly to Mr.JSR Raju ,Director of NCCUIL, as the middlemen try to scuttle the real issues. his e-mail ID is jsrraju@nccurban.com
C R Babu


27
All the members of NCC Meadows Phase 2 should work together to stop the merging of both phases. They never told this while we were buying the flat. I am going to the site on sunday and ask them directly about this.
nitin kumar


28
Mail from NCC
Boundary wall between Nagarjuna Meadows Phase I & II.

With reference to mails from the phase I customers and tele / personal discussions for construction of boundary wall between Nagarjuna Meadows Phase I &II.
NCCUIL has no reservations either to integrate or separate.
Option -I
We can integrate both phases provided the following are to be complied:The resolution has to be passed in the EGM with majority. The voting can be over the mail also for those out of station.If the majority votes for integration then, the following to be implemented: The phase I maintenance will be taken over by NCC UIL and will be combined with Phase II (During this period the phase I association will be advisory committee for phase I). On completion of warranty period of Phase II new committee will be formed by way of election with representation of both phases.The merged complex maintenance will be operational under the NCC UIL for one year then it will be handed over to association.
C R Babu


The above was put up apartment adda by a proactive owner who is bent upon merging the project for selfish reasons.
C R Babu, Apartment Resident 
12th September 2013


29
First and foremost it is not phase 1 or phase II. These are two separate and independent projects to be addressed as Meadows and Meadows II . Both have separate swimming pool, club house, Gym etc but what is lacking is children play area and kirana shop in Meadows. Just for these two facilities will owners of Meadows II wish to comprise use of other facilities in Meadows II by residents of Meadows.
C R Babu


30
Phase I already has swimming pool Gym etc. What do you mean when you say the people from Phase I will come and use facilities in phase II? Or is it like builder is not going to provide any facilities in phase II?
Anurag


31
This is not news but a written proposal from Mr.Venkat,Manager of NCCUIL to the Management Committee of Meadows. The background of the whole issue is that marketing staff of NCCUIL had earlier made tall promises to Meadows buyers, which included that they can use the facilities of Meadows II project. when it is completed. Some owners of Meadows who were duped by marketing team have now raised protest ,due to construction of wall between the two projects.These owners wanted the Management Committee of Meadows to take up merger of the two projects with NCCUIL. After, examining technicalities and legal implications the Management Committee had distanced itself as its not possible for such merger.and requested these few owners to approach NCC marketing office who had promised such merger. Accordingly, NCCUIL had sent such proposal. Since, its not possible to write elaborately, prospective owners may contact me personally on 9739307942 for appraising the same and substantiating with eviden
C R Babu


32
Nagarjuna Meadows Phase II is having 8 block with 522 apartments. First three blocks will get ready by March 2014 and the rest six blocks will get completed by September 2014. The rate per sqft is around Rs 4490. The project si known to be approved by BDA, BBMP and A Khata.
Milind


33
Hi Sree, I am looking for some information about the project. Can you please help me out?
Abhinandan Jain


34
Recently I had a word with the sale s person for the project and they are telling that Nagarjuna Meadows Phase I and Nagarjuna Meadows Phase II will be having different amenities. From where did you get the news about it.
Sree Potamal


Whatever, the marketing staff say is required to be taken with a pinch of salt. You are still not convinced than please go through the Meadows Apartment Adda to see for yourself the number of comments from members of NMAOA (Nagarjuna meadows apartment owners Association).Also to know more about NCC, you may meet the Committee of NCC Aster Park.
C R Babu, Apartment Resident 
6th September 2013


Kindly see the black and white e-mail from Mr.Venkat ,Manager NCCUIL regarding his proposal for merger.
C R Babu, Apartment Resident 
5th October 2013


35

Ask a Question
120 Characters Left

    Related Forum Discussions
    Resale of a unit at NCC Meadows-II
    03
    REPLIES

    Resale of Flat at NCC Phase II
    09
    REPLIES

    Nagarjuna Meadows Phase II reviews
    18
    REPLIES

    Real Estate Investment in Bengaluru
    05
    REPLIES

    Bengaluru Market
    01
    REPLY











    CommonFloor Property Search Mobile App now available on Android, iOS and Windows!

    Disclaimer : Commonfloor.com cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of data displayed on the site. Commonfloor.com does not claim any guarantee and it should be individualistically verified.


    About
  • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Privacy Policy Terms of Service
    Popular Pages
    Realestate in Bangalore Realestate in Noida Realestate in Gurgaon Realestate in Greater Noida Realestate in Ghaziabad Realestate in Faridabad Realestate in Delhi NCR
    Projects Bangalore Projects Mumbai Projects Pune Projects Chennai Projects Delhi Projects Hyderabad Projects Kolkata Projects Ahmedabad Projects Kochi Projects
    More.. Real Estate News Site Map Create a CommonFloor Projects in Gurgaon Projects in Greater Noida Projects in Ghaziabad Projects in Faridabad Projects in Delhi NCR Apartments for Sale in Noida Apartments for Sale in Gurgaon Apartments for Sale in Greater Noida Apartments for Sale in Ghaziabad Apartments for Sale in Faridabad Apartments for Sale in Delhi NCR


    Copyright © 2007-25 CommonFloor.com. All rights reserved.

    Visalatchi Enclave Phase II, Legacy Celino, Unitech Uniworld Resorts, Sobha Elite, The Gran Carmen, CVK Kailasagiri, Lodha Meridian, Century Breeze, AMI Le Reve, Vatika Premium Floors, Civitech Stadia, Anta River Valley, Parth Gardenia, SMR Vinay Fountainhead, Yuga Kalpataru, Paras Manyata Phase I, Pashmina Waterfront, Opera Fortune, Indi Gold, Unitech Vistas Phase II,