Gamuda Gardens, Kuang / Rawang, Selangor — licence 19124, and the one thing nobody publishes: thirteen completed phases, thirteen delivered INSIDE their governing date

Six things about Gamuda Gardens that are true, filed, and published nowhere else

Each of these came out of the public registers and the filed advertisement documents, not out of a brochure. Two of them are reasons to buy here. Four are things to check before you do.

Heston Hills (19124-15) — all 21 filed type codes, and why the marketed specification is wrong for half of them

The developer’s own Heston Hills page gives one built-up (“from 2,227 sq ft”) and a flat “4 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms” — and that bed/bath line is WRONG for types C, D and E, which are filed as 4 bed / 5 bath plus a powder room and 5 bed / 6 bath. The page lists no unit count, no lot size, no per-type built-up, no tenure and no completion date. Everything below comes from the filed advertisement document and the public register, whose 21 component rows match the brochure’s 21 type codes exactly, and whose counts sum to 237 with no phantom type and no omitted block — which is worth crediting. Filed statutory band for the phase: RM1,436,800.00 – RM8,370,800.00. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.

All filed price figures above are the statutory Unit Selling Price ranges from the legally filed advertisement particulars and the public KPKT TEDUH register — that is, the filed SPA ranges. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and nothing on this page nets anything off them. Arithmetic that is this page’s own, and labelled as such: the sum of Heston Hills’ filed minima is about RM506.79 million and of its maxima about RM538.61 million; The Clove’s are about RM251.87 million and RM274.84 million. The announced township GDV of RM10.1 billion over seven precincts and fifteen years cannot be carried by the licensed homes — their filed bands are mostly RM0.5–2.3 million across 3,463 units — which is consistent with the announced figure including the unlicensed commercial, retail and leisure components. This page does not imply the homes carry it. And The Clove’s announced RM418 million Phase 1 GDV covers 400 units across THREE different townships, so it cannot be apportioned to Gamuda Gardens and is not.

Heston Hills (19124-15) — nine images, and an honest account of what each one can be said to be

How this set was assembled, and why no tenth image was added. The developer’s host is Next.js, not WordPress: there is no CMS date field and no media library, so nothing in this set is CMS-confirmed and the grade ceiling is caption-published or inferred. One Amazon S3 bucket serves every Gamuda Land development in Malaysia, Vietnam and Australia, and page placement is PROVEN not to identify a project: the Heston Hills page itself serves main images for Illaria, Agalia and Astor, and Agalia’s filename marks it a Gamuda Gardens Village Homes file appearing on a Gardens Park page — a page-placement pick would hand you the wrong development and the wrong licensee. Every file here was therefore picked by alt text that names the product, never by placement. Refused on that basis: every “Similar Developments” card (they share the useless alt thumb project and are other developments), and every icon and logo — and as a measure of how unreliable this host’s chrome alt text is, three social icons all carry the alt “Facebook”, and phone.svg and datetime.png both carry the alt “Landing Hero Image”. All nine images are Heston Hills. They do NOT depict the thirteen completed phases, and none is used as if they did. The Clove has ZERO verifiable images at all — both its product URLs return a client error and its homes listing renders client-side only, so this page shows no image of it rather than borrowing one. No location map, no site plan, no masterplan graphic and no floor plan exists in any recoverable form.

Where Gamuda Gardens actually is — Kuang, Daerah Gombak, Selangor

Five locality names circulate for one site, and they are not interchangeable. The IQI folder says Rawang; the developer markets it as Sungai Buloh North; the filed address postcode is 48050 Kuang; the public register says Daerah Gombak; and EdgeProp lists it as Gamuda Gardens – Kuang Sungai Buloh North under a Rawang locality tag. The honest line: Kuang, Daerah Gombak, Selangor — marketed as Sungai Buloh North and commonly listed under Rawang. The developer’s own figures put AEON Rawang and Selgate Rawang at 8.5 km and KTM Komuter Rawang at 10.5 km, so the site is NOT in Rawang town. Credit where it is due: the developer publishes 26 distances for this township, which is rare — and every figure below is one of them. Nothing here is estimated and nothing is derived.

Licence 19124, BANDAR SERAI DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. — the filed statutory particulars and the public KPKT TEDUH register, side by side

Everything in this table is either printed in a filed advertisement document, printed in the public KPKT TEDUH register, printed on the developer’s own pages, or marked NOT PRINTED / not a register field. Where the developer’s own two documents disagree, both are shown and neither is resolved. The township is registered under fifteen separate project codes, five of them under the bare township name, so the code is printed beside every phase name — a client who searches “Gamuda Gardens” gets five records for five different buildings and cannot tell which house is which.

Sources, named. The public KPKT TEDUH developer register for 19124 and the project register for 19124-1 through 19124-15 (with -16, -17, -18 and -20 returning client errors, which is how the walk was closed, and jumlahProjek: 15 confirming it); the developer-register searches q=GAMUDA (six licensees, this one absent), q=SERAI (four records, and this is the search that found the licensee), q=GARDENS (six, none of them this licensee) and q=KUNDANG, against the positive control q=EXSIM (sixteen); the filed HIMS advertisement documents for Danau Sutera (Fasa 2-1) and Danau Simfoni (Fasa 1-18A) on the older 19124/19124-NN/ path and for Danau Cengkih (Fasa 1-13) (P45-20250723-00016714) and Gaia Residensi (P45-20231109-00009885) on the P45 path — both path forms occur under one serial, which is worth knowing before anyone concludes a filing does not exist; the GreenRE certification register with all four tiers read plus two unheaded certification-entry lists; the developer’s own township, Heston Hills and accolades pages and the gamudagardens.com.my footer; and named press and portals, collapsed to one publisher each where they share a group — The Edge group (theedgemalaysia, edgeprop and the EdgeProp API host = one), The Star group (thestar and starproperty = one), PropertyGuru and iProperty (one), plus Robb Report, Tatler, Daily Express, Bernama, Free Malaysia Today and Utusan, and two published foreign-ownership guides including IQI’s own. Verified 12 October 2026.

What was NOT reachable, said plainly rather than implied to have been checked. The Green Building Index directory could not be read — it has returned client or server errors throughout this agency’s register work — so GBI is INCONCLUSIVE and was never treated as a negative, and no source claims a GBI rating for this township. The group’s own investor document is a valid URL but returned a client error on two attempts, so the percentage of Bandar Serai Development Sdn Bhd held by Gamuda Berhad is not obtainable and is not stated. The GreenRE Gold, Silver and Bronze tier listings all truncate, so for the two phases with no entry the honest wording is “no entry in the reachable portion of the register”, not “no rating” — and Platinum, 95 rows with its last row complete, IS a clean negative. The Clove’s own two product URLs both return client errors and the developer’s homes listing renders client-side only, which is why no Clove image exists on this page. The Selangor land office publishes no reachable circular on the foreign-buyer threshold, so the RM2,000,000 Zone 1 floor rests on three published guides that agree, and a client must confirm it with PTG Selangor. The state affordable-housing portal’s search is inert, which is why 19124-5’s affordable scheme is reported here as one portal’s claim that no government source confirms.

Foreign buyers — the title says YES, the price floor says mostly NO, and a filed restriction sits on top of both

Three separate bars, and they must be answered separately. BAR ONE, TITLE. The filed plan approvals are all in the MPS 3/2-1371/442(PB(A)) form, the filed approving authority is Majlis Perbandaran Selayang and the register reads negeri: Selangor, daerah: Gombak on all fifteen records. Gombak is a Selangor main zone (Zone 1). On title, these homes are strata title landed — proved three ways from Schedule H, the -(S) permit tail and the 36-month delivery period — and IQI’s own published guide at iqiglobal.com/blog/buying-land-in-malaysia-for-foreigners/ states that generally only strata-titled landed homes qualify, from RM2,000,000 in the main zones. So a foreigner IS permitted here on title — which is the OPPOSITE of the adjacent development, where freehold individual title bars them. BAR TWO, PRICE. The Zone 1 floor is RM2,000,000 — double Kuala Lumpur’s RM1,000,000 — and three published guides agree on it, one of them citing the Selangor land office circular of 2014. At Heston Hills, 72 of the 237 units have a filed statutory minimum at or above RM2,000,000 — types B3 (15), B4 (5), C1–C4 (24), D1–D4 (12) and E1–E5 (16) — with B3’s RM2,040,800 the entry point and E3’s RM8,370,800 the ceiling at 4.19× the floor. 165 of the 237 are filed below RM2,000,000 at their minimum and do not clear it. At The Clove only the dearest 22-unit component starts above the floor (RM2,150,160 = 1.08×); 150 of 172 units are below it, the cheapest at 47.3% of the floor. Gaia Residensi’s filed maximum of RM848,160 is 42.4% of the floor and 19124-5’s RM232,000 is 11.6% — neither comes close. The one phase on this licence that is a clean yes on BOTH tests is MONARC (19124-11), filed RM2,270,160 – RM8,246,160 on Jadual H, all 94 units clearing the floor — and it is COMPLETED STOCK, not a launch. Nobody anywhere sets out this combination of a permissive title and an excluding price floor on the same project, and that is the single most useful thing on this page for a foreign client. BAR THREE, AND IT IS FILED. Every Gamuda Gardens brochure read carries a Sekatan Kepentingan requiring State Authority consent for any transfer, lease or charge. That sits ON TOP of the other two: the strata title permits it, the price floor excludes most units, and the filed interest restriction means the State must consent in every case. One further caution, and it is not academic: one published guide conditions the Zone 1 landed-strata permission on the scheme being gated and guarded, and the developer’s “gated and guarded community” claim has NO support in any filed document — so a foreign buyer should get that confirmed contractually, not from a web page. Thresholds change. Confirm the current figure and the consent process with PTG Selangor and with your own solicitor before you commit.

Schedule G versus Schedule H, in plain language — and why it is the whole story on this township

These two schedules are the statutory sale and purchase contracts prescribed under the HDA 1966, and which one you sign changes four things. ONE, title. Schedule G is for housing sold with individual title — land and building, your own title document. Schedule H is for housing sold together with a subdivided building — a parcel inside a subdivided development, held on strata title. TWO, the delivery period. Schedule G runs 24 months from your SPA; Schedule H runs 36 months. Gamuda Gardens is tempohAsal: 36 Bulan on all fifteen records, which is itself a confirmation that it is Schedule H. THREE, the common property and the charge that comes with it. A Schedule H development has common property, a management corporation under the Strata Management Act, a maintenance charge and a sinking fund. A strata-titled landed home carries that too, and NO maintenance figure, security figure, sinking-fund figure or strata budget is published anywhere for this township — nothing on this page should be read as implying there is none. FOUR, the foreign-buyer answer. In a Selangor main zone, a strata-titled landed home can be bought by a foreigner above the threshold while an individual-title landed home cannot. That is why this distinction is the whole story here: the same built form — a two-storey terrace — is filed on Schedule H with a -(S) strata permit at Gamuda Gardens and on Schedule G with a -(L) landed permit one kilometre away at the adjacent development. Two different legal products, opposite answers, and no marketing surface on either one mentions title type for Gamuda Gardens. What is NOT published: the defect liability period is not printed anywhere by this developer — it follows from the schedule, which marketing never states. Under Schedule H it is 24 months from vacant possession.

The leasehold disclosure — 99 years, three expiry dates, and up to eight years between them

All fifteen phases are 99-year leasehold, and the township carries THREE DIFFERENT LEASE EXPIRIES: 15 August 2116, 5 August 2120 and 21 October 2124. Those are three separate land titles under one developer licence, and they come only from the filed brochures — pegangan is not a TEDUH field on any of the fifteen records. The consequence is practical and it is material. Your remaining term at vacant possession is what a bank looks at when it sets a margin of finance and a tenure, and it is what a buyer looks at on resale in fifteen or twenty years. On the 2124 title (Danau Sutera / Heston Hills) a 2028 handover leaves about 96 years. On the 2120 title (Danau Cengkih / The Clove, and Danau Simfoni / Monarc) it leaves about 92. On the 2116 title (Gaia Residensi) a 2022 handover left about 94. So two houses in the same township, bought in the same year, can differ by up to EIGHT YEARS of remaining lease — and no source anywhere tabulates this. It is tabulated by phase in the FAQ below. Two further things nobody says. First, nine of the fifteen phases have no filed brochure at all (iklan: [] on 19124-1 through -5), which covers 1,226 of the 3,463 homes — so for more than a third of this township the tenure, the lease expiry, the plan reference and the interest restriction are simply not on any public record, and this page does not guess them. Second, the adjacent development is FREEHOLD — one kilometre away, same local authority, same district, same sales gallery, same brand — which is a genuine difference between the two and is stated once, here, without importing any of its other figures. Ask for the title search and the exact expiry date on YOUR lot in writing before you sign.

Identity, and the search problem — a non-empty brand result is not a finished search

Print the code, or the client’s own check fails. The licensee is BANDAR SERAI DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD., 201301020260 (1050090-W), TEDUH developer code 19124, licence 19124/02-2028/0234(A). Searching the TEDUH developer register for GAMUDA returns SIX real licensees — and this one is not among them, because the licensee is not named Gamuda anything. The search that found it was SERAI: the masterplan or special-purpose-company name route. That is a failure mode worth generalising: six genuine hits is a reassuring result, and it was still the wrong answer. A non-empty brand result is not a finished search. Two more identity traps on this licence. FIRST, the township-in-the-name-field shape, and it is the dominant one here: five of the fifteen records read projek.nama: “Gamuda Gardens” for five DIFFERENT buildings — 177, 134, 125 and 126 terraces and a 664-unit 17-storey block. A client searching the township name gets five records and cannot tell which house is which. SECOND, the filed heading is often the LANDOWNER’S MASTERPLAN PHASING, not the product: Fasa 1-13, Fasa 1-18A, Fasa 2-1, and these match the plan-reference suffixes F1-13, F1-18A and F2-1 exactly — so the filed name is the plan phase, not the house you are buying. And four of the fifteen phases, 782 units between them (19124-4, -8, -9, -10), plus 19124-13’s 164 completed units, map to NO public marketing name at all — 946 homes that exist, are built and are occupied, with no product name anywhere.

Permit and filing oddities — five placeholders, one doubly corrupt licence number, and a brochure headed with a tenure label

FIVE FOR FIVE ON PLACEHOLDERS. Every filed brochure read across these licences prints the advertising and sales permit as a literal placeholder — xxx with Tempoh xx, XXX, XXXX, or a blank validity. This is the most consistent placeholder behaviour this agency has recorded anywhere, and the consequence is concrete: the lapse-versus-current test cannot be run from any filed document at all, only from the register. Never pass a licence validity off as a permit validity. A DOUBLY CORRUPT LICENCE NUMBER. Danau Simfoni’s filed brochure prints the developer licence as 1919124-10/02-2023/0108(L) — the digits 19 duplicated in front of the serial 19124, AND the phase index -10 spliced into the licence-number field, on a record that is 19124-11. Two corruptions in one field, and the spliced phase index is the WRONG phase’s. The dates still reconstruct from the /02-2023/ segment; only the serial is corrupt. A BROCHURE HEADED WITH A TENURE LABEL, AND THE IRONY IS WORTH NAMING. On the adjacent licence one filed brochure is headed PEGANGAN KEKAL — a tenure label, meaning freehold, standing where a project name should be, with RUMAH TERES 2 TINGKAT beneath it. It belongs to the FREEHOLD adjacent development, where the label is at least accurate; if that heading were ever read onto THIS licence it would be flatly wrong, because every phase here is 99-year leasehold. The fact sheet resolves it to the other licensee, so it is named here as a reading hazard and nothing is imported from it. AND THE REVERSE-TRAP THAT DOES NOT APPLY, said rather than left to wonder: no -RMM, -AH, -NPT or -OMU type-code suffix pair exists anywhere in any filing on this licence, so no below-filed-minimum figure here can be explained away as an affordable allocation hiding behind a suffix. The affordable allocations that genuinely exist on this licence — 19124-5 entirely, and Gaia Residensi’s 285-unit band — are separate records or separate bands, not type-code twins. One last filing flag, stated as a flag and not as a finding: on the adjacent licence two Kundang Estates records show a CCC dated after the register’s vacant-possession date. CCC is not VP and no VP is recorded for either, so that is something to check, not a finding of late delivery — and it is on the other licensee’s record, not this one’s.

Green certification — the Gold is a community complex on the non-residential tool, and the real ratings are unadvertised

“Gamuda Gardens is GreenRE Gold” would be FALSE FOR EVERY HOME, and this is the most seductive green decoy this agency has met. The Gold row on the GreenRE register is Kompleks Komuniti Gamuda Gardens, GOLD, PROVISIONAL, 6 August 2025, tool NRB v3.2 — NRB is the NON-RESIDENTIAL tool and the subject is a community complex, not a house. The genuine residential entries to this licensee are: Gamuda Garden Clove (Phase 13), BRONZE, PROVISIONAL, 6 August 2025, RES v3.3 — which maps to 19124-14, The Clove, now selling — and Valeria Garden Homes, BRONZE, FINAL, 26 February 2026, RES v3.2 — 19124-12, completed, and the township’s only FINAL certification. Two further Bronze provisional rows sit with this licensee: Gamuda Gardens Phase 7 (21 August 2024), which cannot be resolved to a register code, and Mews Home (12 February 2026), a name that appears on no register row and no developer page found. Provisional is not certified. This page says “provisional” every time. There is NO entry for Heston Hills (19124-15) in the reachable portion of the Gold, Silver or Bronze registers, and those three tiers truncate, so that is an absence in the reachable portion, not a negative. Platinum, 95 rows with its last row complete, IS a clean negative. AND CREDIT WHERE IT IS DUE: the developer advertises NOTHING green on any product page read. Its claims are “solar-ready” and “solar and EV-ready homes” — building features, not certifications. So the ratings are real and unadvertised: they are credited here, and a feature claim is not upgraded into a rating. THE DECOY THAT MUST BE REFUSED BY NAME, because it is the closest this agency has seen: Gamuda Cove, The Clove (Taman Cengkih), Bronze provisional, 6 May 2025, RES v3.3, belongs to Gamuda Land (T12) Sdn Bhd — same group, same marketing name “The Clove”, same tier, same status, same tool version, dates three months apart, and registered Malay names ONE WORD APART: Taman Cengkih against this licence’s Danau Cengkih. The discriminator is the LICENSEE and nothing else. And the confusion is already loose in the wild: EdgeProp places Danau Cengkih in BANTING at 2.87—N, beside Gamuda Cove, against the register’s Gombak at 3.295—N — about 47 km out. Also refused: Damai to SDB Properties Sdn Bhd, which matches a phase name on the adjacent licence EXACTLY and is a different licensee entirely, along with about thirty further rows whose project or developer name contains Clove, Kirana, Damai, Sutera, Flora, Embun, Simfoni, Mentari, Gombak, Kundang or Garden. Two Scientex Rawang ratings in the same town, and four Taman Airria Kundang ratings next door, are refused on licensee as well. GBI could not be read and is INCONCLUSIVE, never a negative.

Awards — seven of them, and not one belongs to a home

NOT ONE AWARD ON THIS TOWNSHIP IS AT PHASE LEVEL. Every item below is a masterplan, township, precinct or park award, and the honest line on a Heston Hills or The Clove page is therefore “the master plan it sits in has won X”, never “this project has won X”. What actually won, and for what: FIABCI World Prix d’Excellence Awards 2026, GOLD in the Masterplan Category, awarded to “Gamuda Gardens, Malaysia” — the masterplan. FIABCI Malaysia Property Award 2025, Housing Master Plan Category — the master plan again. Smart Township Malaysia 2025, SILVER — the township, and the awarding body is not named on the developer’s own page. The Edge Best Managed & Sustainable Property Awards 2025, GOLD — awarded to “Village Homes, Gamuda Gardens”, which is a PRECINCT, not a phase, and it is a JOINT entry with a precinct of a different township entirely. And Malaysia Landscape Architectural Awards (MLAA 13) 2023, PROJECT OF THE YEAR — awarded to “Gamuda Gardens Central Park”, that is, THE PARK. Not the township, and not any home. The same award cycle credits the Central Park with a Green Infrastructure Award and an MLAA Excellence Award (2022, Landscape Design). Nothing has been awarded to Heston Hills, The Clove, Monarc, Valeria Garden Homes or any Danau phase. Decoys refused, and they sit on the developer’s own accolades page, which is exactly where they do the most damage: SIX of the 2025–26 entries belong to the WETLANDS ARBORETUM, which is at GAMUDA COVE — a different development under a different licensee in a different district (a GBC Judges Commendation, an Edge–ILAM Gold Sustainable Landscape, an Editor’s Choice for Wetland Conservation, a FIABCI Silver Environmental, an MLAA15 Project of the Year, an MLAA15 Special Award and MLAA15 Honour and Excellence Awards). Also refused: twentyfive7’s Smart Township Gold, Gamuda Cove’s Smart Township Silver, a Vietnam precinct’s FIABCI Gold Masterplan, a contractor-category award to a group construction company, and three CORPORATE items — a GBC business-leadership award, a developer hall-of-fame listing and a top-developer ranking — all three to Gamuda Land, not to any project. And the accolades page carries a “Load More” control, so this is not necessarily the complete list and is not presented as one. No QLASSIC score was found for any phase.

The vendor, the land, and why “no joint venture” can be said AFFIRMATIVELY here

Most pages can only say that no joint venture was found. This one can do better than that. The 532 acres beside this township were bought on 3 January 2023 for RM360 million in eight parcels from Kundang Properties Sdn Bhd, by Gamuda Land (Botanic) Sdn Bhd — not by this licensee — and the deal is carried by four independent publishers. Here is the affirmative part: Kundang Properties Sdn Bhd DOES hold its own KPKT developer licence (code 8206, 8206/01-2027/0510(R), five projects, all in Kundang Jaya) — AND IT HOLDS NO PHASE OF THE LAND IT SOLD. A vendor that is itself a licensed developer and retains nothing is positive evidence that this was an outright land purchase and not a development-rights joint venture, which is a stronger statement than an absence of evidence. What is NOT published, and it is the one corporate gap left: the percentage of BANDAR SERAI DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. held by Gamuda Berhad. The group’s investor document would answer it and returned a client error on two attempts. Gamuda Land (Botanic) is described as a wholly owned subsidiary in the 532-acre announcement — but that is stated for licence 14542, NOT for 19124, and this page does not carry it across. Also not published for any phase of this licence: any main-contractor name, contract sum, lot address or gross floor area. No Bursa contractor announcement exists — and because Gamuda Berhad is one of Malaysia’s largest contractors building its own township, the third-party-contractor route is a CLOSED DOOR, not an open gap.

Gardens Park is a DIFFERENT development — stated once, cross-linked once, and then left entirely alone

The adjacent Gardens Park is a separate development with a different licensee, a different tenure and a different title type, and it is not a phase of Gamuda Gardens. Its licensee is GAMUDA LAND (BOTANIC) SDN. BHD., 199901016836 (491736-H), TEDUH developer code 14542; its homes are filed Schedule G with an -(L) landed permit tail and a 24-month delivery period; its tenure is PEGANGAN KEKAL, FREEHOLD; its filings record Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada — no interest restriction at all; and its plan references read 3170 where every one of this licence’s reads 442. Four independent legs settle that they are two developments: two licensees with two licences and two project lists; two different master-plan reference numbers under the SAME local authority; a green register that prints the Gardens Park name against the Botanic licensee; and a published 532-acre land purchase describing the new parcel as being next to the existing 810-acre Gamuda Gardens. A fifth leg is the two developments’ OWN distance tables, which contradict each other on eight shared destinations by up to 6.4× — and that is evidence of two real sites, not an error; the register’s own coordinates put the Gardens Park phases west of these. Why the confusion exists: the developer’s corporate site correctly calls Gardens Park “a freehold development, adjacent to Gamuda Gardens”, but the gamudagardens.com.my site carries Gardens Park as one of its own navigation sections, and both developments share one sales gallery address and one phone number — that gallery address is printed as the developer’s own address in every filed brochure across BOTH licences. The consequence for a buyer is the biggest single finding across the two: the same built form is STRATA-titled here and INDIVIDUAL-titled there, which gives opposite answers to the foreign-buyer question, different delivery mechanics, and different maintenance liabilities. Nothing on any marketing surface says so. Gardens Park has its own page on this site. Not one of its figures — not a unit count, not a price band, not a distance, not a green rating, not an award, not a completion date — appears anywhere else on this page. And a third township sits on that same adjacent licence: Kundang Estates, four records CCC’d 2018–19. It is kept off this page entirely.

What this page does not publish, and why

This agency has one absolute compliance instruction and this page applies it literally. No discount figure, no rebate figure, no nett price, no promotion and no commission information appears anywhere on this page, from any source, whatever its provenance — and those five terms appear exactly once each on this page, here in this sentence, and nowhere else. There is one deliberate, named exception, and it is the term Bumiputera, which appears three times: once here, once in the answer block near the top of this page and once in the final column of the register table above — and in both of those places the page records ONLY that the filed advertisement contains such a field and that the field carries a value, and publishes no value for it. What that means in practice. The filed statutory Unit Selling Price bands and the public KPKT TEDUH register bands ARE published here, because they are the legally filed sale and purchase price ranges and a public government record — and each is labelled on this page as what it is: not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. What is withheld, and how many carriers it has — and the carrier count is the sharper point. The developer’s OWN pages carry entry figures BELOW the filed statutory minimum on THREE of its four marketed products. Neither those figures nor the size of the gaps appears anywhere on this page, because printing a gap beside a filed minimum would reconstruct the withheld figure exactly. Recorded here is only that the discrepancy exists on three products, and who carries it. And here is the part that matters: the carrier count is ONE, and that one carrier is NOT independent — it is the developer itself. No portal was found repeating any of the three. A developer carrying a figure below its own filed statutory minimum, on three of its four products, with no independent publisher repeating it, is a sharper finding than a wide discrepancy across many sources would be, and it is stated as such. Counting rule applied, so that the figure one is honest: the two Edge-group domains and the EdgeProp API host count as one publisher; PropertyGuru and iProperty count as one; the two Star-group domains count as one. The filed minima themselves ARE publishable and they are in the table above — Heston Hills RM1,436,800.00 and The Clove RM945,800.00. Two further figures are recorded as collisions and published as neither a local price nor a withheld one. The press reports an average selling figure for The Clove that sits below Danau Cengkih’s filed minimum — but it is an average across THREE townships, so it is not a Gamuda Gardens price at all and is not presented as one. And the marketed entry figure for The Atrium has no filed statutory band in existence to test it against, because The Atrium holds no HDA registration — so the below-filed-minimum test there is INAPPLICABLE, not passed, and that distinction is made deliberately. And the trap running backwards was checked and does not apply: there is no affordable-unit type-code suffix pair anywhere in any filing on this licence, so the filed minimum IS the open-market minimum and the below-filed figures are marketing figures, not an affordable band. Why Louis does it this way. Anything beyond the filed SPA range changes week by week, is unit-specific, and belongs in a conversation with a registered estate agent who can put it in writing against your actual unit and your actual financing — not on a public web page where it would be stale, wrong, or read as an offer. Ask Louis. He will take you to the filed document itself.

Gamuda Gardens — the questions, answered from the filings

Also worth seeing — and one page that must not be confused with this one

Published 12 October 2026 · last verified 12 October 2026 against the public KPKT TEDUH developer register for 19124 and the project register for 19124-1 through 19124-15, the filed HIMS advertisement documents for Danau Sutera, Danau Simfoni, Danau Cengkih and Gaia Residensi, the GreenRE certification register across all four tiers plus two certification-entry lists, the developer’s own township, product and accolades pages, the gamudagardens.com.my footer, and the named press, portal and foreign-ownership sources listed above. · Marketing information, not an offer. Confirm every figure against the filed advertisement particulars and the Schedule H sale and purchase agreement.