MAHOGANY RESIDENCES @ Kota Damansara — registered RESIDENSI MAHOGANI, 281 condominium units, Jadual H on all 281, DELIVERED EARLY with NO extension (CCC 08/08/2024, VP 27/08/2024, peratusSiap 100.00), GreenRE SILVER FINAL to 05/01/2029 — licensee EVEREST PIONEER SDN. BHD., Petaling Jaya (MBPJ), Daerah Petaling, Selangor

Why this page reads differently from every brochure on this project

Six things. Each one is a document this page read and a decision it made in the open, and each is checkable against a register code you can type in yourself: 30011-1.

Six filed built-ups, no type codes, and nothing that ties a size to a bedroom count

The filed statutory advertisement publishes six built-ups as a BARE LIST: no type codes, no bedroom counts, no bathroom counts, no car-park allocation and no unit count per size. It prints them in this order — 905, 1,033, 1,055, 1,178, 1,121, 1,623 — which is not numeric order, and this page keeps that order because the order is itself evidence: it is the signature of a hand-typed list, and the reason to take built-ups only from the filing and never from narrative prose. The register’s own keluasan field is a placeholder (0 / “0 mps”), so it corroborates nothing. Three sources agree on the RANGE at both ends — 905 to 1,623 ft² — and the portal, which publishes the range and only the range, gets it exact. Credit where due. Every card below therefore carries a size and an honest blank where a brochure would put a layout.

The only evidence that a type-code system exists at all on this project is a single word inside ONE media filename on the developer’s own server. Nothing ties that word to any of the six filed built-ups, to a bedroom count or to a price, so this page names no type and publishes no type code. What would close this gap: the Schedule H agreement’s own floor plans, or the developer’s own price list. Louis Koh will ask for both in writing.

Developer imagery — and three construction photographs that are DATED for a reason

Read the three dates above, because they are the point. This building received its CCC on 8 August 2024 and was handed over on 27 August 2024 — and the NEWEST photograph the developer has published anywhere is the September 2024 construction shot above. There is no photograph of the completed tower on any surface read. So three of the images on this page show a building site on a tower that has been finished for over two years, and each one carries its date so that nobody mistakes it for how the building looks today. The two show-unit photographs are captioned “show unit” and nothing more. The developer’s gallery groups them under a tab label, and a tab label establishes that a GROUP of files are show-unit photographs of this project — it does not establish which ROOM any one of them shows, so none is called a living room, a kitchen or a bathroom here. And the refusal behind this short set: the majority of this developer’s own media library is licensed stock photography and theme demo content, which its own file titles expose. None of it is on this page. A rainforest stock photograph published beside the developer’s forest-reserve line would have been a fabricated illustration. There is no facility image of any kind, no aerial, no floor plan, no site plan, no lobby and no location map, so none of those is illustrated here either.

Kota Damansara, Petaling Jaya, Selangor

The district had to be settled before the foreign-buyer threshold could be looked up, and here it settles three independent ways. First, the filed plan-approval reference BP MBPJ/120100/T/P10/861/2021(7): the MBPJ prefix is a Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya building-plan reference, and its /120100/T/P10/ body matches other MBPJ references already catalogued on this site. Second, Pihak berkuasa yang meluluskan is printed in WORDS on the same filed document as MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA — prefix and named authority agree, and MBPJ’s jurisdiction lies wholly within Daerah Petaling, Selangor. Third, the register says so itself: daerah: “Petaling ”, negeri: Selangor, lokasi: “Petaling , Selangor” — not a bare dash, so no rescue from the State controlled-price list was needed. Nothing puts this project in Petaling Jaya’s neighbouring local authorities, and nothing on the district is left unadjudicated.

KPKT register and the filed advertisement: RESIDENSI MAHOGANI, register code 30011-1

There is exactly ONE filed document on this project, and it is a bare one. IKLAN_BROSUR_01 is a single-panel BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN of about 950 characters: no project name, no marketing copy, no facilities, no distances and no layout schedule. Two sibling files in the same directory were fetched and are genuinely absent, while this one reads cleanly — so the directory discriminates and the two absences are real. Every cell below is a field on 30011-1, a line on that filed document, a column in the GreenRE register, or a statement on the developer’s own surfaces, read on 15 October 2026 and quoted with its own key. Only two cells carry a third-party figure, and both say so.

Read 15 October 2026. Register fields are quoted with their own keys so that any figure here can be checked against 30011-1 directly. Where the filed advertisement and the register disagree, both are printed. Where the developer disagrees with both, that is printed too. Two cells carry a third-party figure and both say so; nothing else in this table is from a portal.

The filed advertisement prints its licence number, licence validity, permit number and permit validity as BLANK FORMAT TEMPLATES — xxxx-x/xx-xxxx/xx (x) and dd/mm/yyyy — i.e. the unfilled form, not a redaction. So four statutory fields on the one filed document carry no information at all, and every number in those four rows above was read off the register instead. This page says which source each figure came from for exactly that reason.

What Jadual H gives every one of these 281 units — stated as a fact, not a hedge

All 281 units at Mahogany Residences are filed Jadual H, and this page states that flatly. pjb.jenis on 30011-1 reads Jadual H with tempohAsal: 36 Bulan; pemaju.bilanganProjek reads 1 and the serial walk closes at 30011-2 with a client error; and no source anywhere — not the register, not the filed advertisement, not the developer and not the portal — describes an office suite, a SOHO parcel, a retail podium, a commercial tier or a separately-licensed component on this scheme. There is no parcel here that sits outside the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966. So for every one of the 281: the prescribed statutory Schedule H sale contract rather than a freely negotiated one; the statutory 36-month delivery period; the Schedule H liquidated-damages formula if that period is missed; the section 7A housing development account, into which a purchaser’s money must be paid; the statutory defect liability period running from vacant possession; and access to the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. Why this paragraph comes first. Project after project on this site has had to be re-framed because a page would otherwise have implied statutory housing protection that did not in fact reach the component being sold. Here the protection exists on every unit, there is nothing to carve out, and the reach is total. Check it yourself with the code rather than the name — 30011-1, licence 30011/03-2027/0010(N) — because the marketing name is spelled three different ways and a KPKT developer search on the brand stem returns ZERO.

Delivered EARLY with no extension — what the register says, and the caveat that travels with it

Read on 15 October 2026, the register’s delivery block on this scheme is the cleanest this site has recorded. tarikhPjbPertama: 14 Jun 2022 plus tempohAsal: 36 Bulan gives a contractual vacant possession date of 14 June 2025. The CCC was issued on 8 August 2024 and vacant possession followed on 27 August 2024, with peratus: 100.00 and both keseluruhan and komponen reading Siap Dengan CCC. That is about TEN MONTHS inside the statutory deadline, and about SIX MONTHS ahead of the developer’s own filed Tarikh dijangka siap of Februari 2025. And the field that makes it unambiguous: pindaanTempohSerahKosong reads Tidak, with tempohTambahanDiluluskan, tempohPembinaanBaharu and serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama all -. No delivery extension was applied for or approved. On twelve projects researched for this site that field read Ya — an approved extension, i.e. a later date and statutory relief. This is the first Tidak on this site that is Tidak because nothing was needed, and Lewat is not flagged anywhere on the record. Now the caveat, and it is not a small one. That record belongs to the LICENSEE, and the licensee has exactly ONE registration: pemaju.bilanganProjek reads 1 and 30011-2 does not exist. So this is a perfect delivery record over a sample of ONE. It is real, it is on a government record, and it is not a track record. And the figure that is NOT the licensee’s. One portal publishes a developer track-record card reading 10 projects registered, 7 completed, 1 under construction, none on the KPKT watch list and none behind schedule, troubled or abandoned — but that card scores the parent and four related companies, i.e. the GROUP across five licensees. It is not this licensee’s record and it is not substituted for it anywhere on this page. Both halves are said here because saying only one of them would be marketing.

The licensee is EVEREST PIONEER SDN. BHD. — and it is named on no developer surface anywhere

The licensed developer is EVEREST PIONEER SDN. BHD., company registration 201201006891 (980411-P), KPKT developer code 30011, holding exactly ONE registered scheme. That registration number is printed on the FILED ADVERTISEMENT and nowhere else: not on the register, not on the microsite, not on the portal. And the licensee’s NAME appears on no developer surface at all. The microsite footer, the sales-gallery block, the group’s own Properties page and the portal all name Asian Pac Holdings Berhad — the listed PARENT, with the parent’s own registration number. A KPKT developer search on the parent’s name returns ZERO: the parent holds no developer licence of its own, because the group licenses through single-purpose companies. So a buyer reading only the developer’s own website would contract with a company whose name is printed nowhere on it — and the company that owes the Schedule H obligations, the section 7A account and the defect liability period is the one on the register, not the one in the footer. The group relationship itself is proven rather than claimed. The parent’s own directory page prints its registered office, its operating office and its telephone number, and all three match, character for character, the register’s alamat_daftar, alamat_perniagaan and telefon for this licensee — and the register’s contact e-mail for the licensee sits on the parent’s own domain. Four legs, all positive. The parent is named here ONCE, as the parent, and no shareholding percentage is stated, because none is published: the group publishes its structure as a GRAPHIC with no text schedule of subsidiaries, and its directory lists only the parent, its share registrar, its auditor and two principal bankers. What would close it: the parent’s annual report subsidiaries note, or a company profile on 201201006891. One more thing a reader should know, and it is the developer’s own doing. Every page on the group’s site, including this project’s, footers a single link labelled “Advertising Permits & Developer License” — and the document behind it belongs to a DIFFERENT licensee, a different local authority, a different product, a different tenure and a different chargee, on a licence and permit that both expired in 2016. Nothing in it belongs to this project, and this project’s own licence and permit appear on no developer surface at all. That is why this page prints both instruments in full, from the register.

GreenRE SILVER, FINAL CERTIFICATION, expiring 5 January 2029 — the register says more than the developer does

The developer’s microsite carries a bare badge reading “GreenRe Certified Development” — spelled that way, with NO tier, NO certificate number, NO status, NO tool version, NO scope and NO date. The GreenRE register answers all of it, under the REGISTERED scheme name and to the LICENSEE: Project Name Residensi Mahogani, Certification FINAL CERTIFICATION, Rating SILVER, Developer Everest Pioneer Sdn Bhd, Building Category RES v3.2, Date of Certification 05/01/2026, Date of Expiry 05/01/2029, Status: ACTIVE. So the claim is TRUE and the register is more informative than the claim, which is the honest direction — and it is why this page is willing to use the word certified here, always with the tier and always with the expiry date. Three things follow from the register row itself. First, it is a FINAL certification and not a provisional one, so nothing on this page has to hedge the word. Second, the RES v3.2 tool code independently confirms the RESIDENTIAL building category — not a non-residential, industrial or enhanced-non-residential tool — which is a free corroboration of the product question. Third, it CARRIES AN EXPIRY: 5 January 2029. A green rating with an end date is not a permanent attribute of a building, and a buyer who values it should ask what happens at that date. What is NOT established. Whether an earlier PROVISIONAL certification exists is INCONCLUSIVE rather than negative: this licence was issued in March 2022, which sits below the oldest row in the Gold, Silver and Bronze tables as read, so a 2022–2023 provisional would be invisible to that search. The Platinum table closes cleanly back to 2015, so Platinum is a genuine clean negative. The certification post-dates CCC by about seventeen months, which is consistent with an as-built final rather than a design-stage provisional. And the microsite’s copyright line reads 2021 while its badge carries no date, so whether the badge was published before the 5 January 2026 certification date cannot be established from the page — flagged, not asserted. GBI: no rating is claimed for this project by anybody, and the GBI directory was unreachable on the day, so that is inconclusive and NOT a negative. Awards: no award is claimed for this project on any surface read, and no awards page was found on the developer’s site — recorded as an open gap rather than as a proven absence, because it was not exhaustively searched. And if an award ever does surface, note that every completed project in the group’s portfolio belongs to a DIFFERENT licensee, so nothing may be borrowed down onto this scheme.

Foreign buyers: Selangor Zone 1 is RM2,000,000, 0 of 281 clear it, and the obstacle is the PRICE rather than the title

The threshold follows the district, so the district was settled first — from the filed plan prefix BP MBPJ/120100/T/P10/861/2021(7), from MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA printed in words as the approving authority on the same filed document, and from the register’s own daerah: “Petaling ” and negeri: Selangor. Daerah Petaling is SELANGOR ZONE 1, where the foreign-buyer floor is RM2,000,000. The filed statutory band on this scheme runs RM641,000 to RM1,177,000. So ZERO of the 281 units clear the floor at their filed prices, and not marginally: the DEAREST filed unit is about 59% of the floor, short by more than RM800,000. One sentence answers every foreign enquiry on this project. But say which obstacle is real, because it matters for a resale. This is a PRICE answer, not a title answer. The product is strata — filed Kondominium, Jadual H, permit tail -(S) — and Selangor Zone 1 DOES admit strata above the floor. Nothing about the title or the product class shuts a foreign buyer out here; the numbers do. And a SECOND GATE applies regardless of price. The filed Sekatan kepentingan reads Tanah ini boleh dipindahmilik, dipajak atau digadai setelah mendapat kebenaran Pihak Berkuasa Negeri. — State Authority consent before the land may be transferred, leased or charged, sitting ON TOP of any foreign-acquisition consent. Note the polarity: this filing phrases the gate POSITIVELY, where other filings on this site phrase the same gate negatively. It is the same gate. The softer wording must not be read as the absence of one, and it is a solicitor’s question, not a brochure’s. The rest of the Selangor table, for completeness and because it is checked rather than remembered: Zone 1 — Petaling, Gombak, Hulu Langat, Sepang and Klang — RM2,000,000; Zone 2 — Kuala Selangor and Kuala Langat — RM2,000,000; Zone 3 — Hulu Selangor — RM1,000,000. Sabak Bernam has no figure verified for this site and none is stated. The Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur floor is RM1,000,000 with EPU consent, and it does NOT apply here — this is Selangor. And the RM1,500,000 window some older material still quotes has EXPIRED and is not current.

The APDL has LAPSED — stated carefully, because the direction here is the healthy one

The advertising and sales permit, 30011-1/04-2025/0014(N)-(S), was valid 28 April 2022 to 27 April 2025 and is therefore LAPSED — about eighteen months before this reading. The developer licence 30011/03-2027/0010(N) is a separate instrument and remains CURRENT to 2 March 2027. Now the part most pages get wrong by omission: the sequence here is healthy. CCC was issued on 8 August 2024, so the permit outlived completion by about eight and a half months. A permit that expires after the building is finished and handed over is the normal and correct end of its life, not a failure. What the page records as a juxtaposition rather than an allegation. As at this reading the developer’s corporate Properties page still lists the project under “Current Projects” with a price on it, and one portal’s dated reading has 43 of the 281 units unsold. No source addresses whether a completed, CCC-issued scheme that still displays a price requires a renewed permit. So this page prints the permit, its dates, the CCC date and the developer’s own listing, and alleges nothing. If it matters to you, ask for the permit position in writing before you pay a deposit. And the filing’s own contribution to the confusion. The filed advertisement prints FOUR statutory fields — licence number, licence validity, permit number, permit validity — as BLANK FORMAT TEMPLATES: xxxx-x/xx-xxxx/xx (x) for the numbers and dd/mm/yyyy for the dates. That is the unfilled form, not a redaction, and it means the one filed document on this project discloses neither instrument. The lapse is still fully assessable, because the register holds the real instruments — but the filing’s placeholder must never be passed off as the permit’s validity, and nothing on this page does.

Affordable housing, controlled prices and the ethnic-allocation field — a worked clean negative

This was checked against the document rather than assumed, because a recent project on this site was caught out by exactly this question. The Selangor housing board’s controlled-price project list, updated 10 September 2026, was read in full: there is NO row for this registered scheme, NO row for the licensee, NO row for the parent, and NO row for Kota Damansara or its section code anywhere in it. Corroborated by arithmetic: that document’s listed prices run RM180,000 to RM300,000, while the filed minimum here is RM641,000 — more than twice the document’s highest figure. So: NO Rumah Selangorku component, NO affordable-commercial component, NO controlled-price tier. Entirely open market, on all 281 units. And the preamble was read too, because its rules are the thing people assume reach further than they do. That document’s eligibility rules sit AFTER its tables, not before them: a household income cap, Malaysian citizenship, a minimum age, no prior home ownership in the State by applicant or spouse, one house type per applicant, a one-year application validity — and a transfer moratorium under which ownership may be transferred only after FIVE YEARS from the sale and purchase agreement, with State approval. NONE of it reaches any part of this project, and the reason is documented rather than inferred: there is no row. One related list, the State quota-exemption register, was not read, and that is recorded as not done rather than as a negative. The ethnic-allocation position, with the two shapes kept strictly separate. A price-concession field for the ethnic allocation EXISTS on the filed advertisement and carries a value — the disclosure further down this page names that field in its filed language and WITHHOLDS its value, which is recorded nowhere on this page and nowhere in the research behind it. And the clean negative that travels with it, checked rather than assumed: there is NO ethnic unit-quota row and NO lot-title classification row on any surface read for this project — the filing’s own quota field reads NOT PRINTED. A concession field, no quota, no title classification.

The contradictions, numbered — printed, not resolved, and with no referee available

Start with the structural fact that governs every line below: there is NO second independent third-party publisher of ANY fact on this project. One portal is the only third-party surface, so every disagreement here is register-versus-developer or developer-versus-developer with nobody to adjudicate it. This page does not imply portal corroboration anywhere, and where a figure is that publisher’s alone, the cell says so. 1. The developer named on every marketing surface is not the licensee. The microsite and the portal both name the listed parent; the register and the filing both name EVEREST PIONEER SDN. BHD.. Unresolved only in the sense that the developer has not corrected it — the statutory record is unambiguous. 2. BEDROOMS: register 2, 3 and the portal 2 to 3 against the developer’s own 3 to 4. The developer is the outlier at BOTH ends. The register’s bilik field is populated here rather than carrying the legacy 0/0 defect, so it is real data — and it still cannot break the tie. UNADJUDICATED. Bathrooms agree; the built-up range agrees exactly on all three surfaces. 3. The developer’s corporate site lists a CCC’d building under “Current Projects”, against Siap Dengan CCC, CCC 08/08/2024, VP 27/08/2024 and 100.00%. Roughly fourteen months stale on its own delivered project. 4. The STOREY COUNT is single-source. 31, from the register alone; the filing prints no Bilangan tingkat and neither the developer nor the portal publishes one. Nothing contradicts it and nothing corroborates it. 5. The FILED ADVERTISEMENT DOES NOT NAME THE PROJECT (Nama projek/pemajuan: Tidak dinyatakan) while the register names it RESIDENSI MAHOGANI and the developer calls it something else again. Three surfaces, one of them blank. 6. BUILDING TYPE WORDING: the filing says Kondominium, the register says Rumah Pangsa/Kondo. Same family, the register’s label looser. This page publishes the filing’s word. 7. The filed built-up list is printed OUT OF NUMERIC ORDER (1,178 before 1,121). Cosmetic, and the signature of a hand-typed list — which is a reason to take built-ups only from that list. 8. One publisher rounds the top of the band UP to about RM1.2M against the filed and registered RM1,177,000. Above, not below, so no compliance consequence; recorded for shape. 9. The CHARGEE on the filing is Al Rajhi Bank while the parent’s own directory names two other banks as its principal bankers. Not a contradiction — a project charge and a group banker are different things — but the chargee is named on the filing and nowhere on the developer’s site. 10. Three spellings of one word are in circulation — Mahogany, Mahogani, and singular Residence against plural Residences. Not a contradiction, a search-breaker: use the register code.

Not published by anybody — and the document that would close each one

Fourteen gaps, each with the document that answers it. None of them is estimated, inferred or filled on this page. 1. The project’s street address. The filing prints none and the register has no address field at all. → the sale and purchase agreement’s title particulars, or an official land search. 2. The postcode. The only postcode on any surface belongs to a SALES GALLERY inside a DIFFERENT development, so it is not printed here as this project’s and must not be read as such. → the title, or Pos Malaysia. 3. Lot or PT number, mukim and land title number. Nothing anywhere. → the issue document of title, or the SPA. 4. Land area. Keluasan tanah NOT PRINTED; the register carries no field; the developer publishes no acreage. → the filed site plan, or the title. 5. Block or tower count. → the filed building plan BP MBPJ/120100/T/P10/861/2021(7). 6. Total car-park bays, and bays per built-up. → the filed building plan; the SPA schedule. 7. A type-code schedule tying each of the six filed built-ups to a bedroom count, a bathroom count, a bay allocation and a unit quantity. The only “type” anywhere on this project is one word inside one media filename, tied to nothing. → the Schedule H floor plans; the developer’s own price list. 8. Facility levels — and any facility schedule from the developer at all. → the filed strata or site plan; a developer brochure, of which none was found. 9. Architect, engineer and main contractor. NOT PRINTED on the filing and named by no source. → a contract announcement, or the CIDB register. 10. The licensee’s shareholding, and any joint-venture share. → the parent’s annual report subsidiaries note; a company profile on 201201006891. 11. GDV. → the parent’s annual report or a stock-exchange announcement. 12. Whether an earlier GreenRE provisional exists. INCONCLUSIVE, because the tier tables truncate below this project’s own dates. → GreenRE directly. 13. Any award for this project. None found, and not exhaustively searched — an open gap, not a negative. → the developer, in writing. 14. Current resale evidence on a building delivered in 2024. → official transaction data, which was not consulted for this page. And one more that belongs here because it is a fact rather than a gap: there is NO second independent third-party publisher of any fact on this project. Louis Koh will ask the developer in writing for any of the above.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis Koh’s instruction about his own agency’s project materials is absolute, and this page keeps to it: no price-adjustment figure of any kind appears here — not in English, not in Chinese, not in the page body and not in its structured data. First, the field that had to be handled with care, because the filing carries it. The filed statutory advertisement contains a field printed Diskaun Bumiputera, and that field carries a value. The field exists; its value is WITHHELD, and it is recorded nowhere on this page and nowhere in the research behind it. A figure sitting on a public statutory document is exactly the kind that gets copied across in good faith, which is why it is named here and refused here. And the clean negative beside it: there is NO ethnic unit-quota row and NO lot-title classification row on any surface read for this project. Second, the plain list. No discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion, no freebie, no incentive and no commission figure appears anywhere on this page, in either language. Beyond the concession field above, nothing of that kind was found on any surface read either — not on the developer’s three surfaces, not on the filed advertisement, not in the register and not on the single portal. Saying which of the two it is — found and suppressed, or genuinely absent — is the difference between a disclosure and a formula. Third, there is one figure on one third-party page that this site would not publish even if it were accurate. That publisher carries an opening “from” figure that sits BELOW the filed statutory minimum of RM641,000, and it carries it in three places on the one page — its body, its page title and its page description. The digits are not recorded here and no arithmetic that would recover them is given. Independence check: ONE publisher, so there is no pair of sources to collapse. And the credit that belongs with it: the DEVELOPER is the clean side on this project — its own Properties page prints the filed minimum of RM641,000 exactly. That is worth saying, because on other projects it has been the other way round. Fourth, the same publisher carries a computed monthly instalment with stated loan assumptions. It is a calculator output rather than a developer offer, and no part of it — no instalment, no margin, no tenure and no rate — is reproduced here. Fifth, returns. No yield, no ROI, no rental-return, no gross-return, no leaseback and no guaranteed-rental rate appears here — and on this project NOTHING in that family exists on any of the five surfaces read, so there was nothing to refuse. On a completed condominium with unsold stock remaining that is worth stating positively: there is nothing to withhold. What this page DOES publish on price, and nothing beyond it: the filed statutory Unit Selling Price band registered with KPKT and printed on the filed advertisement — RM641,000 to RM1,177,000 — always labelled as the filed statutory band, always as ONE band for the scheme rather than a figure attached to any built-up, and always with the same caveat: this is not a price list, it is not a quotation, and it is not an offer. That band is the SPA price range, which is the one price figure this site publishes, and the register carries it identically at both ends. No price per square foot appears here, because no per-type price is filed and any such figure would be this page’s own arithmetic dressed up as a specification. One charge is published, labelled as a charge and attributed: a maintenance figure of RM0.385 per square foot stated by one portal as including a 10% sinking fund, which neither the developer nor the filing publishes. Get it in writing before relying on it. For the current price list, for the sale and purchase agreement itself, and for anything attaching to one specific unit, speak to Louis Koh and he will get it in writing.

Mahogany Residences @ Kota Damansara: the questions, answered from the record

Other projects worth comparing — and what does NOT belong beside this one

Published 15 October 2026 · last verified 15 October 2026 against KPKT 30011-1, the filed statutory advertisement, the GreenRE tier tables, the Selangor controlled-price project list, the licensed developer’s own three surfaces and one third-party property portal. Marketing information, not an offer.