Damansara Fifty6 @ Damansara Heights — registered RESIDENSI DAMANSARA 56, register code 13859-1, 56 units in two blocks of 4 and 11 storeys, wholly Jadual H, an APPROVED 15-month extension and the building still arrived nine months beyond it — ccc and vp both 27/03/2023 — licensee DAMANSARA FIFTY6 SDN. BHD., Bukit Damansara, Kuala Lumpur

Why this page reads differently from every brochure on this project

Eight things. Each one is a document this page read and a decision it made in the open, and every one of them is checkable against a code you can type into the public register yourself: 13859-1.

The eight plan sheets, exactly as the developer publishes them

The developer publishes eight unit plan sheets with its own printed captions, and that is all it publishes about them. NOT ONE SOURCE — not the register, not the developer, not the portal — prints a built-up, a bedroom count, a bathroom count, a car-park allocation or a price against any of these four type names. The areas exist only inside the drawings, and reading a figure off an image would be this page asserting something nobody published, so they were deliberately not read. The sheets below are therefore reproduced with the developer’s caption and NOTHING added.

DUPLEX GARDEN UNIT

Block A · the developer’s own printed caption on its own plan sheet

Block Acaption published by the developerno built-up publishedno bedroom count publishedno price published

The only duplex sheet on the project, and the distinctive type. The developer’s own specification schedule gives Block A’s duplex a loft with a cement-render floor, and its own electrical table gives the Duplex six air-conditioning points against four on a Standard unit — which is the developer’s own room list supporting its own room claim. No area, no bedroom count and no price is published against this name by anybody, and none is inferred here.

Ask for this layout with its built-up in writing

STANDARD UNIT

Block A · the developer prints the SAME caption on two separate sheets

Block Acaption published by the developertwo sheets, one captionno built-up publishedno price published

Two of Block A’s three sheets carry the identical printed caption STANDARD UNIT. Whether they are two different unit positions or two views of one type is not stated by the developer and is not guessed here — both sheets are published below in the gallery exactly as they are printed. The developer’s specification schedule for Block A gives ceramic tile to the living, dining and kitchen areas, solid natural timber to the bedrooms and a rain shower to the master bathroom.

STANDARD GARDEN UNIT

Block B · the only garden-unit sheet in Block B

Block Bcaption published by the developerno built-up publishedno bedroom count publishedno price published

Block B’s counterpart to the Block A duplex garden sheet, and the second of only two garden-unit names on the project. The developer’s specification schedule treats Block B broadly as it treats Block A — timber bedroom floors, post-formed wardrobes — and gives it no separate area schedule. Nothing published anywhere attaches a size or a room count to this name.

CORNER SPECIAL UNIT, STANDARD UNIT

Block B · one caption covering TWO type names, on four separate sheets

Block Bcaption published by the developerfour sheets, one captionno built-up publishedno price published

Four of Block B’s five sheets carry this one printed caption, which names two types at once. Which part of the drawing is the corner unit and which is the standard unit is not labelled in any text the developer publishes, so this page does not split them. The developer’s electrical table does distinguish them: 23 lighting points on a Block B Corner Special against 19 on a Block B Standard, with four air-conditioning points on each. All four sheets are published in the gallery below.

No plan sheet belongs against this entry — it is a register field, not a layout

The built-up, as the register files it — one flat figure for 56 units

Register field · keluasan on the summary and on BOTH component rows

126 mpsabout 1,356 sq ft (our conversion)development-wide, NOT a per-type figureno maximum published

The register prints 126 mps — one flat figure, no range, no per-type schedule — and 126 m² converts to 1,356 sq ft to the whole square foot (our conversion). The developer independently says built-ups run “from 1,356 sq ft onwards”, so the two surfaces agree on the converted figure and the field is best read as the MINIMUM built-up for the development. It is NOT a figure for any one of the four type names above, and this page never places it against one. The maximum is published by nobody: “onwards” is never completed anywhere.

Ask for the per-type built-up schedule

Not reproduced here — it carries no caption, so its type is unknown

A ninth sheet exists in the developer’s library and is published on no page

Enumeration gap · the displayed sheets run 04–09, then 11 and 12

one sheet orphanedone type possibly undocumentedprinted unadjudicated

The developer’s media library holds a plan sheet of exactly the same size as its siblings which is displayed on none of its 19 pages and therefore carries no caption at all. A sibling sheet’s caption cannot be lent to it, so it is not reproduced here and no type is assigned to it. Either a withdrawn type or a publishing omission — printed unadjudicated. The filed statutory schedule would close it.

Captions on the plan sheets below and in the gallery are the developer’s own printed captions, reproduced verbatim and graded caption-published: the printed label describes a subject, while the file’s own CMS title does not. Four further type-level questions are answered by nobody and are listed in the register section: the per-type built-up schedule, the maximum built-up, the bedroom and bathroom count per type, and the car-park bays per type. Nothing on this page is read off the inside of a drawing.

The fourth compass view, and the remaining plan sheets

Twelve images, and what they are NOT. The four compass views carry the developer’s own CMS titles AND its own printed page captions, agreeing — so the caption is confirmed. But the caption establishes a COMPASS DIRECTION and nothing else: no source says whether these are photographs or renders, and none says whether they look OUT from the building or AT it, so this page writes no elevation, no facade, no room, no floor level and no view subject. The eight plan sheets carry the developer’s own PRINTED captions, which is why they are published at all, and they are reproduced with NOTHING added — no square footage, no bedroom count, no price — because no source publishes any of those against any of these type names, and the areas printed inside the drawings were deliberately not read off the image. And what is missing, stated plainly: there is NOT ONE gradeable photograph of the finished building anywhere — no facade, no aerial, no lobby, no pool, no gym, no interior. The developer’s library holds large, clean images with no subject named anywhere, and images of OTHER developments entirely. Both were refused. So this page cannot illustrate its own facility list, and it does not pretend otherwise.

Bukit Damansara / Damansara Heights, Kuala Lumpur

NOT ONE SOURCE on this project publishes a single distance or drive time. The developer’s own location page is a graphic map with a legend that NAMES places and gives no figure for any of them; the register holds no distance field; and the one portal that carries the project names places without a kilometre too. So this page publishes no distance, and names no “nearest” anything. The lists below are names, in the publisher’s own words, with who said it. The map pin is the register’s OWN filed coordinate pair — not an address, because the only street address on any surface comes from a single portal.

RESIDENSI DAMANSARA 56 — the register block, field by field

This is a REGISTER-ONLY statutory block, and that is the single biggest structural fact about this page. The register links no filed advertisement at all — its iklan array is empty and its brochure field is null — and the government document server that normally serves the filed copy returned an error on this project’s file. Two known-good control files from other projects in this series returned the IDENTICAL error on the same day, so that is a failure to READ, and it is NOT evidence that nothing was filed. It is recorded as inconclusive. Everything below therefore comes from the public register itself, from the licensed developer’s own website, or from one property portal — each cell says which.

Source: KPKT KPKT TEDUH register records 13859 and 13859-1, read 15 October 2026, with the licensed developer’s own website and one property portal named wherever either is the source of a cell. Thirteen fields that a filed statutory advertisement normally prints are ABSENT KEYS in this record. Absent is not empty and not “none”. Intervals, percentages and the square-metre conversion on this page are our own arithmetic on the register’s own dates and figures, and are labelled as ours.

Nothing on this page is an offer, a quotation or a price list. No price appears on this page at all, and the reason is given in full below rather than left as a gap. The register’s legacy completion wording is not transcribed here: the instrument this building was completed with is the CCC / Borang F of 27 March 2023, which is what both the register’s own ccc field and the developer’s own log say.

Can a foreign buyer purchase here? The price clears comfortably — the TITLE is the question nobody answers

The threshold first, because it is public policy and it is publishable. This is a project in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, where the floor for a foreign acquisition of residential property is RM1,000,000 per unit under the Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah effective 13 July 2022, with consent processed federally by the Economic Planning Unit over section 433B of the National Land Code (Revised 2020). No Selangor zone figure applies to a Federal Territory project, and the RM1,500,000 window of an earlier 2020 circular has EXPIRED and must not be treated as current. On price, the answer is a clean yes: the government register’s own price band for this development — which this page does not publish, because no FILED statutory range exists — sits wholly and comfortably above that floor, at every unit type, with no straddling type and no exception among the 56. And then the part that actually decides it. The KPKT register has NO Sekatan Kepentingan field for this project at all — the key does not exist in the record, which is not the same as an empty value and is emphatically not the same as “no restriction”. The filed advertisement, which is where that field normally sits, could not be read; the developer publishes no statutory panel on any of its 19 pages; and the one portal prints no restriction either. So WHO CONSENTS to a transfer is simply unanswered on every reachable surface, and this page says so in those words rather than paraphrasing silence as a clear title. Two further things a foreign buyer should hold together. Federal consent via the EPU applies regardless of the title’s own terms. And IF the title is leasehold — which one portal says and no register confirms — a restriction requiring State Authority consent to transfer, charge or lease is common in this part of Kuala Lumpur and would sit ON TOP of the foreign-acquisition consent. Two documents close all of it, and this page names them rather than guessing: (1) the filed statutory advertisement for 13859-1, which prints Sekatan kepentingan and Pegangan tanah verbatim; and (2) a strata title search at PTG Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur — available on this project precisely BECAUSE strata titles were issued in August 2022. The policy threshold itself should be confirmed in writing by a Malaysian lawyer before anyone is advised.

Build percentage and delivery — 100.00, and a third kind of delivery record

peratus reads 100.00 on both component rows, and ccc and vp both read 27/03/2023. This building is finished, delivered and strata-titled. The honest part is HOW it got there. First sale and purchase agreement 23 March 2018 plus an original delivery period of 36 months gave a contractual vacant possession date of 23 March 2021. pindaanTempohSerahKosong reads Ya and tempohTambahanDiluluskan reads 15 Bulan: an extension was applied for and APPROVED, taking the construction period to 51 months and the contractual date to 23 June 2022. Vacant possession then happened on 27 March 2023 — nine months and four days beyond the extended date, and twenty-four months and four days beyond the original one (both intervals are our arithmetic on the register’s own dates). Relief was granted and the date was still missed. That is a third shape: not “delivered inside the revised date” and not “delivered early”, but late even against the extension — and a buyer reading only pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya would never see it. The register’s Lewat late flag does not exist in this record at all — not Ya, not Tidak, absent — so this page reports it neither way. What a buyer of a completed unit does with this: liquidated damages under Schedule H run from each buyer’s own agreement date, so the arithmetic is per-contract, and the defect liability period ran from the 27 March 2023 handover and is long finished.

The developer names its own delay causes, on a dated log — and that is to its credit

The developer’s own progress log attributes the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Movement Control Orders, a manpower shortage, rising material costs, “last-minute compliances”, a pending permanent water supply that was blocking the CCC inspection as at December 2022, and the general-election period. A developer that publishes its own delay reasons on a dated log is unusual, and this page reports it neutrally rather than either hiding it or using it. Two more credits, both checkable: its log agrees with the register on the completion date to the day, and it claims no green certification and no award anywhere across its own site — silence being the honest shape where no certificate exists. One sentence on its own disclaimer page is nevertheless wrong against the register, and that is printed in the contradictions below. Nothing here alleges anything beyond what the two documents say.

How the district was settled — four legs, and NO plan prefix to point at

On most pages on this site the approving authority is derived from the building-plan approval number, whose prefix identifies the authority. That derivation CANNOT be run on this project, and the page says so rather than implying a source it does not have. kelulusanPelan, noKelulusanPelan, pihakBerkuasa and pbt are ALL absent keys in the register record; the developer publishes no statutory panel on any of its 19 pages (its own page list was enumerated in full and contains no permit, licence, statutory or terms page at all); the filed advertisement could not be read; and the portal prints no plan number. So the Federal Territory answer rests on four stated legs instead: the register’s own daerah: Kuala Lumpur and negeri: WP Kuala Lumpur; the filed coordinate pair, which range-checks and falls inside the Federal Territory in the Bukit Damansara sector; the licensee’s own business address in a 50450 Kuala Lumpur postcode; and the one portal’s “Bukit Damansara, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur”. Two of those four legs are government records. NO source names a different authority, and no source names the city authority either — every surface is silent, so there is nothing to adjudicate and nothing is asserted. The consequence for a buyer is small but real: the document that would name the authority and the plan number is the filed advertisement or the planning approval itself, and neither is reachable here.

Contradictions between sources — printed, and deliberately not resolved

Nine of them, and the page resolves none of them for you. (1) The developer’s own disclaimer page asserts, in the present tense, that all its licences and its sales and advertising permits for its projects are still valid — while the register shows the developer licence genuinely current to 15 March 2027 and the advertising and sales permit LAPSED on 15 March 2023. The sentence conflates two different instruments, one current and one not. Juxtaposed; nothing alleged. This page repeats neither that claim nor any accusation about it, and notes that the site’s copyright line reads 2017 and its newest page content is April 2023, so it may be a stale generic disclaimer — published today nonetheless. (2) Three surfaces, three completion dates: one portal says the build ended in January 2020, the register gives a revised contractual date of 23 June 2022 and an actual CCC and vacant possession of 27 March 2023, and the developer’s own log says 27 March 2023. The register and the developer agree; the portal is the outlier by over three years and still labels the project “Completed Unit Available”. (3) Block A and Block B against a 4-storey 12-unit component and an 11-storey 44-unit component: the register names no block, the developer gives no storey or unit count per block, and the three-sheets-to-five split of its plan drawings is suggestive and is not evidence. Printed unadjudicated. (4) Tenure is SINGLE-SOURCE: one portal says leasehold, the register’s pegangan key is absent, no developer surface says anything, and no lease expiry exists anywhere. (5) One portal contradicts ITSELF on the postcode across two of its own pages about this same project. This page publishes no postcode. (6) The facility lists disagree in BOTH directions: that portal adds five facilities no developer surface claims and omits four the developer does claim. One publisher, no second portal to referee it. (7) The permit chain has two date gaps — 41 days in 2017 and 17 days in 2022 (our arithmetic) — and one out-of-order serial, a lower number issued after a higher one. A register-history artefact and a real discontinuity look identical here, so both readings stand. (8) A ninth plan sheet sits in the developer’s media library, displayed on no page and therefore captionless, while the published sheets jump from the ninth number to the eleventh. Either a withdrawn type or a publishing omission. (9) The prior-licence history is missing from a register whose own permit chain starts in January 2015, on a licence whose suffix is NOT a first issue — so a developer licence must have existed from 2015 and the register does not show it. That is a register GAP, written as one rather than as a “first licence” finding. And one register-internal contradiction, which IS resolved, on regulatory grounds: the record’s overall status enum names a completion instrument whose regime ended in 2007, while the same record carries a ccc date and the developer’s own log says Borang F on that date. The modern instrument is right, the enum is a legacy artefact, and the legacy word is never transcribed onto this page.

Not published by anyone, therefore not on this page — and what would close each one

This is the list Louis will take to the developer, and it is longer than usual on this project because the statutory block is register-only. (1) The restriction in interest on the title, and who consents to a transfer — the field does not exist in the register. The single most consequential gap here. (2) The land tenure, and any lease expiry date. (3) The approving authority and the building-plan approval number. (4) The land area — and therefore the density, which cannot be computed at all. (5) The mukim, section, lot or PT number. (6) The chargee. (7) A per-type built-up schedule, and the MAXIMUM built-up: four type names exist with no area, no bedroom count and no price against any of them. (8) The filed statutory selling-price range. (9) The unsold-unit count at any date — the register’s bakiUnit key is absent, no portal carries a dated reading, and the developer’s own undated phrase about limited units is not converted into a number here. (10) The car-park bay count per unit type, beyond the developer’s “minimum 2”. (11) Which block is the 4-storey block and which is the 11-storey block. (12) The maintenance charge and the sinking fund — published by nobody, and on a completed, strata-titled building this is the question buyers ask second. (13) The management corporation or managing agent: the developer’s log says a property manager was appointed to prepare vacant possession and does not name it. (14) The architect — the site names none, and the only signal anywhere is a set of filenames in the developer’s own media library belonging to images of FOUR OTHER PROJECTS, which is an inference about a portfolio and not a statement about this building, so no name is published. (15) The main contractor. (16) The parent company’s own registration number. (17) Any distance or drive time to anything. (18) Any facility’s level assignment. (19) A GreenRE Bronze answer, which is structurally unreachable for a certification before April 2024. (20) Whether a lapsed advertising permit affects the continued marketing of completed stock — no source addresses it. What closes most of them: the filed statutory advertisement for 13859-1, a strata title search at PTG Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, and the developer’s own written schedule. Ask Louis for any of it.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis Koh’s own standing instruction governs this page and it is absolute: no figure describing a discount, a rebate, a nett price, a promotion or an agency commission from any developer or agency material may ever appear on a public page of this site, in either language, in the page body or in its structured data. Nor may a leaseback rate, a guaranteed-rental rate or any yield, ROI or rental-return figure — and on this project there is nothing in that family to withhold: five surfaces were checked and no rate, no return and no financing-package figure exists on any of them, which is itself worth recording on a completed building whose unsold count nobody publishes. On ethnic allocation, the position is simply that no such field exists: the register holds no Diskaun Bumiputera field, no quota and no lot-title classification for this project, and neither does any of the developer’s 19 pages or the one portal — and because the filed advertisement could not be read, that is an absence on the reachable surfaces rather than a proven absence, which is how it is stated. And the price rule, in full, because this project is the case it was written for. No filed statutory selling-price range is reachable: the register’s advertisement array is empty, its brochure field is null, and the document server could not be read even for known-good control files. Where no filed range exists, this site publishes NO price at all rather than substituting something else. So there is no portal figure here, no area median transaction statistic standing in for a project price, and nothing read off the inside of a graphic — including the developer’s own comparative price table, which is an image about other people’s developments, carries its figures entirely inside the picture, and comes with the developer’s own disclaimer that the information may not be reliable any more. That image is refused outright and no number from it exists anywhere in our files. Nothing on this page is a price list, a quotation or an offer. The real figure comes from the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the developer’s own sales office, in writing, which is exactly what Louis will get for you — and it is why there is a WhatsApp button beside every section of this page instead of a number.

Damansara Fifty6 — frequently asked questions

Pages worth reading beside this one — and exactly what does NOT travel between them

Published 15 October 2026 · last verified 15 October 2026 against KPKT KPKT TEDUH register records 13859 and 13859-1, the licensed developer’s own 19-page website, the four GreenRE tier registers and their certification entry lists, the Federal Territories Residensi Wilayah register and one third-party property portal. Marketing information, not an offer.