Residensi Dedaun @ Bandar Tun Hussein Onn, Cheras — and the first thing this page has to tell you is that it is in SELANGOR, Daerah Hulu Langat, under Majlis Perbandaran Kajang, NOT in Kuala Lumpur: 341 apartments over 37 storeys on Jadual H, 87.50% built — and FIVE different completion dates are in circulation for it

Five facts frame this page, and the first one is the address

Nothing in this section is a selling point. Each one is a documentary finding, and four of the five are findings against paperwork published by the developer or by somebody writing about it.

Eighteen layout codes in THREE built-up groups — and not one of these areas is a filed figure

Read the warning before the sheets. The filed advertisement carries no area schedule at all — not a square foot, not a square metre, not a type code — and the register’s own area field reads 0 mps, which is an empty field rather than a figure. So every area below is the developer’s own current website figure and NONE of it is statutory. The developer publishes an area for each of its three plan TABS and for nothing finer: no source anywhere publishes an area, a unit count or a price for any single one of the eighteen codes, and this page prints none. Nor is anything read off the drawings themselves — a plan sheet is a graphic and this page takes no figure from a graphic. The register contributes only the SETS bilik: 2, 3 and tandas: 1, 2, which tell you that two-bedroom units exist without telling you which code they are.

Group Type A - C1 — 1,160 sq ft

Layout types A, A1, B, B1, C, C1 · the developer’s own plan sheet · 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms — the ONLY group for which the developer publishes either

1,160 sq ft (developer, current)1,190 sq ft (2023 press generation)6 codes3 bed · 2 bathno per-code area anywhere

The largest of the three groups, and the one that carries the top of the filed price band. The area is contradicted: the developer publishes 1,160 sq ft on both of its own pages today, while a December 2023 press generation carried 1,190 sq ft — a 30 sq ft difference. The two third parties that print 1,190 are probably NOT independent of each other: they share the unit count, the room counts and the same facility wording, which reads like one launch kit. So this is best described as the developer’s CURRENT figure against ONE 2023 press generation, not as two publishers against one — and the current figure is what is published here, with the older one named. This is also the only group with a published bedroom and bathroom count, and the register’s own sets allow for units with two bedrooms and one bathroom somewhere in the building.

Group Type D - F1 — 850 sq ft

Layout types D, D1, E, E1, F, F1 · the developer’s own plan sheet · bedrooms and bathrooms: the developer leaves BOTH fields EMPTY

850 sq ft (developer, current)6 codesbedrooms NOT PUBLISHEDbathrooms NOT PUBLISHED

The bed and bath icons render on this panel on the developer’s own page with NO numbers beside them. So the developer publishes an area for this group and declines to publish a room count for it. Both third parties assert three bedrooms and two bathrooms across ALL types, and the register contradicts that outright by recording bedrooms as the set 2, 3 and bathrooms as the set 1, 2. The obvious reading — that the 850 sq ft groups are where the two-bedroom units live — is an INFERENCE, because the register gives the SET and not the MAPPING, and this page does not print an inference as a fact. The closing document is the developer’s own type schedule, or the First Schedule of the sale and purchase agreement for the code you are actually buying.

Group Type G - J1 — 850 sq ft

Layout types G, G1, H, H1, J, J1 · the developer’s own plan sheet · bedrooms and bathrooms: both fields EMPTY here too

850 sq ft (developer, current)6 codesno code Ibedrooms NOT PUBLISHEDbathrooms NOT PUBLISHED

The same published area as the D - F1 group and the same two empty room fields. The eighteen codes run A, A1, B, B1, C, C1, D, D1, E, E1, F, F1, G, G1, H, H1, J and J1 — there is no I, which is ordinary practice and is noted so that nobody goes looking for a nineteenth sheet. Two groups published at the same 850 sq ft means the difference between them is not area, and no source says what it is — not orientation, not stack position, not level band. That is a real gap and it is printed as one.

Both 850 sq ft groups and the 1,160 sq ft group are the developer’s own figures, published 2026, and they are marketing figures rather than statutory ones because the filed advertisement contains no schedule to check them against. No figure in square metres appears on this page, because nobody publishes one and the register’s area field is empty rather than convertible. The filed car-park entitlement is 2 Unit; the developer markets 2/3 Side By Side Car Park; the register key is absent. The two are printed separately and never merged.

Nine renders and three plan sheets — every one of them an artist’s impression

EVERY image on this page is an artist’s impression, and every caption says so. And here is the finding that matters more than any of them: NO construction-progress photograph of this project is published by ANY source — not by the developer on either of its two project pages, not in the December 2023 press report, not on either portal — even though the KPKT register records the building at 87.50% built. So a buyer can see what the building is meant to look like and cannot see what it looks like. Two of the renders carry only the bare project name in the source library and are therefore captioned generically: no subject is asserted for them, and in particular no subject is asserted for them from a source filename, even where a filename offers one. Eleven of the facilities the developer itself claims have no image at all, and no render here is allowed to stand in for one of them — the surau, the kindergarten, the multipurpose hall, the shop lot, the two terraces, the carwash bay, the EV charging bay, the mini hiking trail, the green zone, the management office and the BBQ area are claims, not pictures. Nothing in the library is licensed stock, theme demo content, an architect’s portfolio or another project’s asset: every source filename begins with this project’s own name.

Bandar Tun Hussein Onn, 43200 Cheras — Daerah Hulu Langat, SELANGOR

The locality question is the single most important thing on this page, and it is not a matter of opinion. Two PRIMARY legs settle it and they agree: the filed building-plan reference (24)dlm.MPKJ.6/P/26/2020 is the Selangor / MPKj reference shape, and the same filed document names Majlis perbandaran kajang (MPKJ) in words as the approving local authority. MPKj’s jurisdiction is Daerah Hulu Langat, Selangor, and nothing else. Four register fields corroborate it — daerah: Hulu Langat, negeri: Selangor, lokasi: Hulu Langat, Selangor and the licensee’s own business address, which the register writes as 43200, Hulu Langat, Selangor — and so does the filed coordinate. Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur has no jurisdiction here, and this page does not place the project in Kuala Lumpur in either language. One portal prints the address as Kuala Lumpur and then, on the same page, notes that postcode 43200 “is technically in Selangor”. That is a source contradicting itself in one document, and it is why the derivation had to be done from the filing rather than copied from a listing. Why it matters beyond tidiness: the state decides which land authority consents to a transfer, which state register governs affordable stock, and which foreign-buyer floor applies.

KPKT TEDUH register 10013-12 and the filed advertisement, side by side

This is the spine of the page, not a footnote. Every value in the row below is either the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record for 10013-12 or the developer’s own legally filed advertisement — and where the two disagree, both values are in the cell. Two notes on the primary document before you read it. FIRST, it exists at two paths and only one of them can be read: the path the register itself links is an image with no text layer, and the readable document sits at the older unlinked path. SECOND, the readable document contains TWO successive statutory blocks whose values are identical except for one digit of a fax number. And the filing is thin: sixteen fields, naming no project, no site, no mukim, no lot, no land area, no storey count and no area schedule.

Register and filed advertisement both read 21 October 2026. On that reading the developer licence and the advertising and sales permit were BOTH current — the licence to 30 September 2031 and the permit to 6 April 2027 — while the filed advertisement was still printing a licence number that expired on 30 September 2026 and a permit number that is a literal placeholder. Every instrument sentence on this page is therefore a dated statement and should be re-checked on the day you act on it.

Verify all of this yourself at teduh.kpkt.gov.my by searching the registered name Residensi Dedaun or the register code 10013-12. Two search warnings. FIRST: searching for a developer whose name contains “DEDAUN” returns NOTHING — no licensee in Malaysia has that word in its company name, so the project’s own name reaches no corporate record at all; search the licensee as UDA LAND instead. SECOND: searching “Dedaun UDA”, which is how the file is labelled in some agency systems, finds nothing anywhere. And one register oddity worth knowing before you browse the licence: UDA LAND (CENTRAL) SDN BHD appears on this licence as a registered PROJECT NAME and is NOT a licensed developer — a reader who does not notice which kind of object they have found will attribute this building to a company that holds no licence. There is also a registration on this same licence named after the whole township, BANDAR TUN HUSSEIN ONN, whose status is Permit Tidak Wujud — permit does not exist. Neither of those is this project.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis Koh’s instruction on his agency’s own project material is absolute, and it is wider than the law requires: no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion or campaign package and no commission figure appears on any page of this site, in either language, in the body or in its structured data. Three things on this project fall inside that rule, and the page names all three rather than leaving a silent gap where a reader cannot tell whether something was missed or withheld. THE FIRST, and it is the one that needs saying precisely: the filed advertisement carries a Diskaun Bumiputera field, and that field is POPULATED WITH A PERCENTAGE. This page tells you the field exists and that it carries a figure. The figure itself appears nowhere on this site, and it is not reproduced in any note, caption or data block behind the page. And the distinctions matter, because the three things that look alike here are not alike. It is a PRICE ADJUSTMENT on the filed advertisement. It is NOT a unit quota — no source on any surface publishes a unit allocation, a reserved block or a percentage of stock set aside for anybody, and the register carries one component row and one price band. And it is NOT a lot-title classification either — nothing on this registration is Rizab Melayu; that phrase belongs to a different, unrelated Selangor scheme and it is named here only so that you can see it has been checked and excluded. THE SECOND: the developer runs a campaign page on its own website which names this project and attaches a figure to a unit in it. The campaign name, its mechanic and its figure are all withheld, and so is the page it sits on. It is withheld whether or not the figure is favourable, because the rule is about the KIND of figure and not about its direction — and the direction was checked anyway. THE THIRD: a December 2023 press report publishes an average per-square-foot figure for this project. That is a price rather than a return, so it breaks no law and no rule of logic — but it is a single third-party figure, nearly three years old, and it is not the filed statutory price. It is not published here, because what Louis publishes is the filed SPA price and nothing else. SO WHAT IS PUBLISHED is one money figure and one only: the filed statutory Unit Selling Price range, RM394,800 – RM907,200, from the developer’s own legally filed advertisement, agreeing to the ringgit with the KPKT register and with the developer’s own website. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. Everything beyond it — what is available today, at what price, on what terms, and what a buyer in your position would actually be offered — is a conversation with Louis and a document from the developer, not a number on a web page. That is the whole reason this section exists rather than being left blank.

Which source answered which question — and the questions neither of them answered

On this project the division between the filing and the register is unusually stark, and it runs the opposite way from what a reader expects. ONLY the filed advertisement has: the licensee’s registration number 161741-H; the approving authority, in words; the building-plan reference; the tenure word; the Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada and Bebanan: Tiada statements; the car-park entitlement; and the filed statutory price range. ONLY the register has: the project’s NAME; the storey count; the real advertising and sales permit number and its validity; the first-agreement date; the delivery-extension fields; the revised vacant-possession date; the completion percentage; the bedroom and bathroom sets; the district and state fields; and the coordinate. And the sharpest illustration on the whole project is the name itself: the filed statutory advertisement does not name the development it advertises, so the registered name lives in exactly one field of one register and there is no second statutory surface to check it against. The permit is the second illustration: the filing prints it as a literal XXXXX placeholder, so the register is the only source that can say whether it is current. It is, to 6 April 2027. Neither source answers: the mukim, the lot or PT number, the land area, the street address of the project itself, the block count, any per-code area or room count, the facility level plan, the total car-park bay count, the unsold count, the lease expiry, the chargee, the architect or contractor, or the maintenance charge. Those are listed in full at the end of this page rather than quietly left out.

The primary document exists at two paths and only one of them can be read

A small methodological point with a real consequence. The register’s own brochure field and its single-item advertisement array both point at a filed PDF that resolves perfectly and contains no machine-readable text at all — it is an image. The readable copy of the same filing sits at an older path that the register does NOT link, and that is where every filed figure on this page comes from. “The filing is unreadable” and “the filing is unreachable” are different failures, and the second path form is the cure for the first. In the same directory, a second brochure file and a filed newspaper advertisement both return nothing — which is a discriminating control: the directory serves what exists and refuses what does not, so those two are genuinely absent and this project has no filed newspaper advertisement. Both readable statutory blocks in that document are identical except for one digit of a fax number — (603) 9074 6188 in the first and (603) 9074 6288 in the second. Printed because it is the kind of defect that tells you how carefully a filing was assembled, and because a reader who finds the other number elsewhere should know it is not a different company.

Foreign buyers — the answer, and why it does not depend on the boundary question

Daerah Hulu Langat is in Selangor Zone 1, where the floor for a foreign acquisition is RM2,000,000, strata and gated landed strata alike. The filed statutory MAXIMUM for the entire project is RM907,200 — about 45% of that floor. Not one of the 341 units reaches the threshold, there is no straddling type and there is no exception. And here is the point worth leading with, because it is the strongest honest fact on this project: the answer does not change if the boundary had gone the other way. Had the derivation landed on Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur and the Federal Territory, the floor would be RM1,000,000 under the Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah effective 13 July 2022, with consent through the Economic Planning Unit and section 433B of the National Land Code — and RM907,200 is below THAT too. Circular 2/2020’s RM1,500,000 window has EXPIRED and is not current; it is named here only so that nobody quotes it at you. Even that superseded figure would not have changed the answer. So why did the derivation still have to be done? Because the state decides which land authority consents to a transfer, which state register governs affordable stock, and which controlled-price list is the right one to check — and because a page that gets the state wrong gets all three wrong. It also means the page can state the foreign-buyer position without a single hedge, which is rare. One further filed fact belongs here: Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada is a POSITIVE filed statement, so no restriction in interest is recorded on the title as filed. That is not the same as a foreign-acquisition consent and the two are not merged here.

The affordable-housing register — the RIGHT one was checked, and the answer is a clean negative

Because the project is in Selangor, the governing register is the Lembaga Perumahan dan Hartanah Selangor controlled-price project list, and the Federal Territories’ RUMAWIP register has NO jurisdiction over it. RUMAWIP was therefore not consulted, and that is a correct decision rather than a gap — reading the wrong register would have manufactured a false answer either way. The Selangor list, version 10 September 2026, carries no row for this project under any of five search terms: not Dedaun, not UDA, not Bandar Tun Hussein Onn, not Suadamai and not Suakasih. The price leg says the same thing from the other direction: the project’s filed MINIMUM of RM394,800 is about 1.44 times the highest Hulu Langat controlled ceiling in that document and about 1.58 times its commonest tier, so no unit here could be controlled-price stock. And the whole-licence leg: none of this licensee’s twelve registrations appears in the document, and the lowest band on the entire licence still exceeds the controlled tier. There is no affordable component anywhere on licence 10013. Why a negative is worth this much space. The Selangor list’s own rules are printed AFTER its tables rather than before them, and they are what a buyer comparing this project against the controlled-price schemes in the same mukim is really comparing against: a household income cap, a prior-ownership test, compulsory registration with the state housing board, an application that expires, and — on every tier — a FIVE-YEAR TRANSFER MORATORIUM running from the sale and purchase agreement, with State Authority approval still required after it. This project is fully open-market title with none of that attached. That is the honest comparison, and the Selangor list is the only source for it: none of it appears on any project document, any developer page or any portal.

The delivery record behind this licence — twelve registrations, one district, eleven delivered

Licence 10013 carries twelve registered projects and every single one of them is Selangor / Hulu Langat. Eleven are recorded as delivered — Siap Dengan CCC or Siap Dengan CFO — and this one is the twelfth and the only one still Lancar. The register also reports projek_sakit_count: 0 and projek_terbengkalai_count: 0 across that set. Over a sample of twelve in one district that is a real delivery record and this page credits it: this licensee has built out an entire township and delivered almost all of it. Three cautions that go with the credit. FIRST, the sample is the LICENSEE’s, not the group’s. Other companies in the same corporate family hold their own licences with their own records, and reports about any of them belong to those licences and not to this one; the only compliance facts that belong here are this licensee’s own three fields. SECOND, every one of the other eleven registrations is refused by name on this page: no distance, image, facility, award, particular or price crosses from any of them, same licence and same township notwithstanding. THIRD, two of those eleven are traps for anybody searching. UDA LAND (CENTRAL) SDN BHD is a registered PROJECT NAME on this licence and not a licensed developer at all — which is exactly why the consumer surfaces are confused about who built this. And BANDAR TUN HUSSEIN ONN is a registration named after the whole township, with status Permit Tidak Wujud: permit does not exist. Search the township string and that is what you will hit.

The name problem, stated the way a buyer needs it

Six name forms are in circulation for one building, and the developer itself publishes three of them. Residensi Dedaun is the registered name and the only string that works on the register. Dedaun Residensi — the same two words reversed — is what the developer uses at a SECOND self-canonical URL for the same project, in its own blog and in its own asset text, and it is also what both independent publishers use, so the register’s word order is the MINORITY usage in public. The register’s own project list prints the name in upper case, a third form. Dedaun Heights survives in the alt text of three generic theme icons and nowhere else — almost certainly a withdrawn working name, printed here unadjudicated because it appears in no page text, no register field and no filing. And the agency folder label, Dedaun UDA, matches nothing at all: not the register, not the developer’s site, not either portal. UDA is a corporate prefix that this project’s name does not contain. What to do with that, practically. Search the register for 10013-12 or for Residensi Dedaun. Search the licensee as UDA LAND, never as DEDAUN — no licensee in Malaysia has that word in its name, so the project’s own name reaches no corporate record at all. And one decoy to know about: there is a completely different project called Residensi Dedaun Rimba, by a different developer under a different licence serial, in a different district entirely. It shares both words with this one. Nothing about it — not its acreage, not its lease expiry, not its particulars — has any bearing on this page, and nothing from it appears here.

Not published, therefore not on this page

The list below is what a buyer would reasonably ask and what NO source answers. It is printed because an omission a reader cannot see is indistinguishable from an omission a page is hiding. The project’s own street address as a FILED fact — the only address on the filing is the developer’s office. The lot or PT number, and the mukim, as filed facts — which is precisely why the tenure question cannot be closed: a title search cannot be ordered without a lot number. The land area — no filed figure, no register key, no developer figure, and two third parties who disagree with each other — so no density figure exists and none is published, and the one published density claim about this project is refused on its own publisher’s figures, with no arithmetic from it reproduced here. The number of blocks. Any area, unit count or price for any single one of the eighteen layout codes. The bedroom and bathroom count for both 850 sq ft groups — the developer leaves the fields empty and the register gives only the sets. Which level any facility sits on — no schedule, no level plan, and the developer’s own “Project Specification” heading has no content under it on either of its pages. The total car-park bay count — the filing gives an entitlement of two bays per unit, which is not a total. The unsold or remaining unit count — the register key is absent and nobody publishes one, so 87.50% built is read here as construction and never as sales. The lease expiry, and whether Pajakan Kekal means freehold at all. The chargee or financier — the filing says none, and whether that is still true is unknown. The architect, main contractor, quantity surveyor or any consultant. The gross development value. The maintenance charge and the first-year budget. Whether the shop lot and the kindergarten are built, let, operated or shell space. Whether the smart-home specification two third parties described in December 2023 is still part of the product. The line name for either rail station. And any construction-progress photograph of the building at 87.50% built, which not one source publishes. Every one of those is a question Louis can put to the developer in your name, and several of them are answered by a single document.

The questions a buyer actually asks about Residensi Dedaun

Other pages near this one — and nothing crosses between them

Published 21 October 2026 · last verified 21 October 2026 against the KPKT TEDUH register record for 10013-12, the developer record for code 10013, the filed advertisement reachable under that serial, the Selangor housing board’s controlled-price project list of 10 September 2026, four green-certification registers and the developer’s own two project pages. Marketing information, not an offer. The instrument positions are dated statements: on that reading the developer licence ran to 30 September 2031 and the advertising and sales permit to 6 April 2027, and the vacant-possession date was 25 August 2027 after an approved twelve-month extension.