Sari Alamanda 4 @ Rawang, Taman Bukit Teratai, Serendah — THREE separate KPKT registrations share this one registered name: 11625-13 (224 houses, delivered April 2025) · 11625-14 (87 houses, 95.49%, VP 15 May 2027) · 11625-16 = Ixora Garden (130 houses, 5.00%, VP 18 Jun 2028 — the only sub-phase on sale new). And of the 634 houses the developer markets, only 441 are licensed — 193 (30.4%) have no registration, no permit, no filed price and no filed completion date.

Six things about Sari Alamanda 4 that no other source puts in one place

Each card below is a finding, not a selling point. Two of them are credits to the developer and one of them is an error that runs in the buyer’s favour.

The houses, the lot sizes and the filed bands — nine component rows across three registrations

The filed schedule gives LOT SIZES and no built-up. The one readable filed advertisement prints lot dimensions, unit counts and prices and no built-up at all; the other two filings cannot be read. So every built-up in circulation on this project is a marketing figure or a figure derived from the register, and this page labels which. The register’s own keluasan of 155–168 m² is a BUILT-UP, not a land area: 11625-14’s 160 mps × 10.7639 = 1,722.2 sq ft (our conversion), and the built-up published for that same single type is 1,722 sq ft — an exact match. Read as a land area it would understate a 20′×70′ lot about eightfold. And the developer publishes ONE built-up range for all three Ixora Garden lot sizes, so no per-type built-up exists for the live sub-phase from any source.

Ixora Garden — 20′ × 65′ · 11625-16

56 units · lot 20′ × 65′ = 1,300 sq ft · 4 bed / 3 bath · filed band RM695,200 – RM915,860

The largest of the three Ixora typesFiled per LOT SIZE, never per unitBuilt-up: developer range only

The developer’s own render of this house type, titled in its content-management system with the lot size, the project and the sub-phase — which is why this page can caption it by type at all. Filed band RM695,200 – RM915,860, carried identically by the filed advertisement on both HIMS path forms, by the register’s component row and by the developer’s own e-brochure. Built-up: the developer gives 1,718 – 1,810 sq ft for ALL THREE Ixora lot sizes and no per-type figure exists; the register’s 160–168 mps converts to 1,722 – 1,808 sq ft (our conversion). Nothing is filed. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.

Ixora Garden — the filed floor plan · 11625-16

130 units in total · three lot sizes · 4 bed / 3 bath on every row · overall filed band RM679,800 – RM955,680

Developer materialNo built-up annotated — none is filedCar porch, not a bay count

The developer’s own plan for the sub-phase that is on sale. This page does not annotate it with a built-up, because there is none to annotate it with: no built-up is filed on any of the three registrations, and the developer gives one range of 1,718 – 1,810 sq ft across all three lot sizes. Nor is there a car-park bay count: the filing prints only Car Porch / Anjung kereta as a feature, with no number, on every surface. And there is no fixture, sanitary, electrical or finishes schedule anywhere — filed or marketed — so this page publishes no specification table either.

No separate developer render exists for these two lot sizes.
The developer publishes one perspective, one 20′×65′ type view and one plan for the whole sub-phase. This page does not reuse the 20′×65′ render as if it were these.

Ixora Garden — 20′ × 60′ and 20′ × 70′ · 11625-16

14 units at 20′×60′, filed RM679,800 – RM895,950 · 60 units at 20′×70′, filed RM723,800 – RM955,680

14 + 56 + 60 = 130 — it closesNo per-type render existsFour surfaces agree to the sen

The 14 / 56 / 60 split closes exactly on 130, and it is one of the five legs that proves 11625-16 is the sub-phase the Ixora Garden brochure describes: the filing’s own three unit counts and six price figures reproduce the register’s rows to the sen. Both the 20′×60′ and 20′×70′ bands are statutory Unit Selling Price minima and maxima, and both are per lot size — so no individual house’s price is published anywhere by anyone. That is also why the foreign-buyer answer on sub-phase 3 cannot be determined: a band cannot tell you how many houses sit above a threshold.

Acalea — 20′ × 70′ · 11625-14, 95.49% built

87 units · one component row, one type · 4 bed / 3 bath · register band RM793,750 – RM1,029,250 · keluasan 160 mps = 1,722 sq ft (our conversion)

Register only — the filing CANNOT BE READPermit expires 21 Oct 2026VP 15 May 2027

The product name Acalea is an inference and this page says so every time it uses it. Its legs: Vinca, Ovata and Iris account for sub-phase 1’s 224 exactly; Ixora Garden is sub-phase 2 on four surfaces; Acalea is the only remaining product name on the developer’s own project page; and 11625-14 is a single component row of a single 20′×70′ type at 4 bed / 3 bath, which is what the Acalea card describes. It is not a filed fact and is never printed as one. Everything statutory about this registration comes from the REGISTER alone, because all of its filed PDFs exist on the KPKT server and carry no text layer. Its band is the one that straddles the RM1,000,000 Zone 3 floor.

Vinca — 20′ × 60′ · 11625-13, delivered

105 units · lot 20′ × 60′ · sub-phase 1’s Type 1 · register band for the sub-phase RM666,050 – RM999,005 · this row RM666,050 – RM953,130

CCC 18 Apr 2025Sub-sale market nowRegister only — filing CANNOT BE READ

The largest single type on the whole phase: 105 of the 441 licensed houses. Its product name is corroborated by an independent construction record that labels it “PHASE 1 : TYPE 1” with 105 units on 20′×60′ lots, and by the developer’s own asset title. This sub-phase is finished — CCC 18 April 2025, vacant possession 23 April 2025 — so it is a sub-sale market and not a developer sale, and its advertising permit expired on 31 October 2025, which is what should happen. The published built-ups for sub-phase 1 contradict each other inside one publisher’s own record — a header figure of 1,668 sq ft against 1,657 sq ft on every type row — and the register’s 155–161 mps brackets both. This page publishes neither as “the” built-up.

Ovata · 11625-13, delivered

45 units · lot 20′ × 65′ (inferred) · sub-phase 1’s Type 2 · this row RM685,850 – RM971,870

Named on the developer’s own library and nowhere elseLot size inferred105 + 45 + 74 = 224

The middle type of sub-phase 1, and the only product on this phase whose name appears on a single surface: the developer’s own content-management title. Its lot size of 20′×65′ is an inference — the two outer types are independently recorded at 20′×60′ and 20′×70′, and the register gives three rows and no lot dimensions. 45 is the figure that makes 105 + 45 + 74 close exactly on the register’s 224, which is one of the five legs that identifies 11625-13 as sub-phase 1. One publisher invents type codes “Type A / Type AB / Type C” for these three houses; the register gives no codes at all, so there are four naming systems for three types and this page uses the developer’s.

Iris — 20′ × 70′ · 11625-13, delivered

74 units · lot 20′ × 70′ · sub-phase 1’s Type 3 · this row RM705,650 – RM999,005 — the dearest filed house on the phase

RM999,005 — RM995 below the Zone 3 floorregister: bilik 3, 4CCC 18 Apr 2025

This is the row that produces the sharpest number on the page. Its filed maximum, RM999,005, is RM995 — 0.0995% — below the RM1,000,000 Selangor Zone 3 foreign-buyer floor (our arithmetic on the register’s own figure), and no source anywhere says so. Note also that the register’s own bed and bath cells differ between sub-phases of one phase: 11625-13 reads bilik 3, 4 and bilikAir 3, 4, while -14 and -16 read a flat 4 and 3. So a bedroom count does not identify which sub-phase a house belongs to.

No render, no plan, no lot size and no product name exists for the fourth sub-phase, because it has no KPKT registration and therefore no filed advertisement.
This page prints the gap rather than filling it.

Sub-phase 4 — no registration, so no layout

193 units by subtraction · no KPKT code · no advertising and sales permit · no filed band · no filed completion date

634 marketed − 441 licensed30.4% of what is marketedNothing filed, so nothing to publish

The developer markets “about 40 acres with 634 double-terrace house units”. The register licenses 441. 193 units — 30.4% — have no registration, no advertising and sales permit, no filed price and no filed completion date (ours). The Housing Development Act requires both a registration and a permit before a licensed developer may advertise or sell, and no Schedule G protection and no filed delivery date attaches to an unregistered phase, because there is no filing to carry one. That is the requirement and that is what the register contains. This page makes no allegation, and if material for a fourth release appears it must not be presented as part of the licensed 441.

Ask which registration covers my house

All three bands are the statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum filed per lot size. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and no per-unit price is filed anywhere by anyone. 11625-16’s figures are carried identically by the filed advertisement on both HIMS path forms, by the register and by the developer’s own e-brochure. 11625-13’s and 11625-14’s come from the register alone, because their filed advertisements exist on the KPKT file server and cannot be read. No built-up is filed on any registration; the register’s keluasan is a built-up in m² and the sq ft conversions on this page are ours. No car-park bay count, no fixture schedule and no facilities schedule exists on any surface. The Acalea and Ovata attributions are inferences, stated as inferences every time. Verify everything against the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery.

The developer’s own renders, captioned by sub-phase

Every image on this page is the developer’s own, identified by the title it carries in the developer’s own content-management system — which here is the ONLY subject evidence that exists: alt text is empty on every asset but one, and the site prints no captions anywhere. The library belongs to one licensee with sixteen registrations and nine marketed developments sharing a single upload tree, and it was tested in both directions for contamination and came back clean — but only because of a strict naming convention. Five location maps share identical dimensions and thirteen floor plans across six developments share identical dimensions, all in one folder. So assets here are picked by title and by nothing else. Two date points, stated because they decide the captions. The two renders of Ixora Garden in the hero are dated April 2026 in the developer’s own records, within days of the sub-phase being unveiled — even though they sit in a 2024 upload folder, which is not an upload date. The four product renders above were uploaded in September and October 2024, eighteen months before Ixora Garden was unveiled, so they depict sub-phases 1 and 3 and are captioned as such. No 2024 asset on this page is captioned “Ixora Garden”. And one line on what is not here: further developer images exist on the same host whose subjects are not established — their titles are bare sequence numbers — and they are not published on this page for that reason. Also refused: an image whose own file name says it was machine-generated (which is what a link preview of the developer’s site would show), brochure page images that reproduce the price table, sales-gallery wall panels, logos, a 360° tour whose own address names a different, completed development, and three press photographs for which no address, no subject and no clear licence could be established. Nothing here is a stock photograph and nothing is borrowed from a sibling development.

Taman Bukit Teratai, Sungai Choh — between Rawang town and Serendah, Daerah Hulu Selangor

Five names are in circulation for one place and three postcodes are in circulation for one site. The Atlas folder and every portal say Rawang; the register says daerah: Hulu Selangor; the filed plan reference says MPHS; the developer’s own page title says “Serendah, Rawang” and its project page says “located in the Serendah area”, “at the entrance of Taman Bukit Teratai”; and the press has described it as “between Rawang town and Serendah” and “near the Serendah border, north of Rawang town centre”. Three postcodes appear across the portals — 48000, 48200 and 48300, with ONE publisher’s own two records disagreeing with each other — and no filed document gives a postcode at all. The honest line is the one in the heading, and the developer’s own distance table is what proves it: every Rawang-town amenity it lists is 7.6–16.4 km away, so the site is not in Rawang town.

Sari Alamanda 4 @ Rawang — KPKT projects 11625-13, 11625-14 and 11625-16, licensee AMALAN SETAR (M) SDN BHD 199701009676 (425172-T), marketed as Sari Alamanda 4 and, for sub-phase 2, as Ixora Garden

The table below is the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record for all three registrations, read on 14 October 2026, set beside the one filed statutory advertisement that can be read and the developer’s own statutory panel, which it prints inside its Ixora Garden e-brochure. Read it column by column and then down: every cell carries all three register codes, because the three registrations do not share a single figure between them. The filing position, stated precisely, because it governs what may be said about each one. For 11625-16 the record is complete: the filed advertisement is live and readable on both HIMS path forms, the two forms are identical on every statutory field — a clean null diff, which is a result and not a failure — and all six price figures reproduce the register’s rows to the sen. For 11625-13 and 11625-14 the filed advertisements exist on the KPKT file server and CANNOT BE READ: all four of their PDFs return the empty-text placeholder rather than a 404, and a negative control on a constructed path returned CLIENT_ERROR, which is what proves the documents are present and simply unreadable. So for those two sub-phases every statutory particular on this page comes from the REGISTER alone, and “cannot be read” is never written as “none filed”. And a third state exists on this same licence: seven of its twelve Rawang registrations carry iklan: [] — nothing was ever filed for them at all.

Read on 14 October 2026. All three registrations are Schedule G with tempohAsal 24 Bulan and an -(L) landed permit tail, and all three are Berfasa. Every percentage, day count, shortfall and sq ft conversion marked (ours) is our own arithmetic on the register’s or the filing’s own figures, shown so it can be checked. Registry fields change without notice.

The price bands on this page are the statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum from the legally filed advertisement particulars and the KPKT register’s own component rows, filed per lot size. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. No built-up and no parcel area is filed on any of the three registrations. peratusSiap is a banded register value and no completion date on this page is computed from it. Verify projects 11625-13, 11625-14 and 11625-16, the licence 11625/07-2033/0290(R) and the advertising and sales permits on the KPKT register, and verify every figure that matters to you against the price list and the sale and purchase agreement before you commit.

“Sari Alamanda 4” is three registrations, not one — and this is how you tell which one you are being shown

Three separate KPKT registrations carry the identical registered name Sari Alamanda 4 @ Rawang: 11625-13, 11625-14 and 11625-16. Each is a different product, with a different filed price band, a different advertising and sales permit and a different contractual completion date. A client who searches that name on the KPKT register gets three records back, and nothing on the screen separates them. That is why every figure on this page carries its register code, and why this page refuses to publish one set of numbers “for Sari Alamanda 4”. And the trap inside the trap: serial order does NOT follow sub-phase order. 11625-14 is sub-phase 3 and 11625-16 is sub-phase 2, because sub-phase 3 was registered in October 2024 and sub-phase 2 in March 2026. So a publisher that labels 11625-14 “Phase 3” is RIGHT — it is naming the sub-phase, not the phase — and a reader who assumes the higher serial is the later release is wrong. Five independent legs identify which registration is which. Each alone would be weak; together they settle it. One: the unit counts close exactly. The register files three component rows of 105 + 45 + 74 on 11625-13 against a press account of 224 houses in sub-phase 1; one row of 87 on 11625-14 against 87 in sub-phase 3; and 14 + 56 + 60 on 11625-16 against 130 in sub-phase 2. Two: the filed advertisement for 11625-16 is headed FASA 2, and its own three unit counts and six price figures reproduce that register record’s rows to the sen — so the document KPKT serves under that record genuinely describes that record. Three, and this is the single most valuable field found on the whole project: the developer’s own e-brochure is filed in its library under a name reading SA4 PH2 IXORA GARDEN, and the statutory panel inside it prints the advertising and sales permit number 11625-16/03-2028/0212. The developer itself therefore ties the marketing name Ixora Garden to register code -16. No other document anywhere does that. Four: an independent construction record names sub-phase 1’s products and counts — “PHASE 1 : TYPE 1” at 105 units on 20′×60′ and “PHASE 1 : TYPE 3” at 74 units on 20′×70′, which leaves exactly 45 for Type 2 and matches 11625-13’s three rows. Five: a press “starting price” of RM679,800 for Ixora Garden is 11625-16’s filed statutory minimum to the ringgit — and the same publisher’s RM793,750 and RM666,050 are -14’s and -13’s filed minima, also exact. Credit it: it printed the filed figures. One attribution on this page is an inference and is labelled as one every time it appears. The developer’s project page carries a product card for Acalea; Vinca, Ovata and Iris account for sub-phase 1’s 224 exactly; Ixora Garden is sub-phase 2 on four surfaces; and 11625-14 is a single component row of a single 20′×70′ type at 4 bed / 3 bath, which is what the Acalea card describes. So Acalea APPEARS to be 11625-14. It is not filed anywhere and this page never prints it as filed. Three naming systems are live at once — the register’s (Sari Alamanda 4 @ Rawang, three times), the developer’s product names (Vinca, Ovata, Iris, Acalea, Ixora Garden) and the phase / sub-phase numbering — on top of a master-plan rebrand, and the two phase-numbering systems do not map onto each other at all. So “Phase 4” means two different things depending on which article you read, and this page says which it means every time.

193 of the 634 houses the developer markets are not registered — what that means, and what it does not

The developer’s own project page markets “about 40 acres with 634 double-terrace house units”. The KPKT register licenses 441 across the three registrations: 224 + 87 + 130. 634 − 441 = 193 units, which is 30.4% of what is marketed (our own arithmetic on the developer’s own figure and the register’s own rows). Those 193 units have no KPKT registration, no advertising and sales permit, no filed Unit Selling Price, no filed expected completion date and no product name. The completeness of the search matters here, because a missing record would be a much weaker finding than an absent one. The serial walk 11625-1 through 11625-18 was run in full: sixteen records HIT, 11625-17 and 11625-18 both returned CLIENT_ERROR, and the licensee record’s own jumlahProjek reads 16. The walk and the count agree, so there is no dormant twin, no unlisted phase and no fourth Sari Alamanda 4 record hiding anywhere on this licence. By subtraction the unregistered sub-phase is about 9.1 acres — 38.6 less the 16, 9 and 4.5 acres the press gives for the three registered ones — and nobody publishes that figure either (ours). What it means for a buyer, stated as the law states it and no further. The Housing Development Act requires a licensed developer to register a housing development and to hold an advertising and sales permit before it may advertise or sell it. The statutory Schedule G contract, with its 24-month delivery period and its liquidated damages, attaches to a registered phase; a Housing Development Account attaches to a registered phase; and the filed Unit Selling Price and filed completion date exist because a filing exists. Where there is no registration there is no filing, so there is no filed delivery date and no filed price to hold anybody to, and the Schedule G protections do not attach. What this page does NOT say. It makes no allegation about anybody. It does not say that the 193 units are being sold; it does not say they are not; it does not say when or whether they will be registered; and it does not speculate about why the two numbers differ. It states the requirement and it states the contents of the register on 14 October 2026. If material for a fourth release appears, the one thing that must not happen is for it to be presented as part of the licensed 441. And a related gap at master-plan level, kept off this page except in this sentence: the press records 24 retail shops handed over with Phase 1 and fully occupied, and the 913 houses it counted in 2017 against the 889 houses in the register’s seven Alamanda Parklands records differ by exactly 24 (ours). No KPKT housing registration covers those shops — every one of the sixteen records is housing — so they sit outside the Housing Development Act altogether: no Schedule G or H, no statutory liquidated damages, no s.7A account. They are not part of this phase and nothing about them belongs in its figures. The question of whether they carry individual or strata title, and what their status is, is answered by no document at all.

The delivery record of this licence — ten of ten, nine of them with no extension at all, and nobody publishes it

This is the strongest single thing on the page, and it is a credit. All dates below are the register’s own; every margin is our arithmetic on them, computed as sale and purchase agreement 1 plus tempohAsal 24 Bulan against the recorded CCC. Across this licence’s completed Rawang phases: ten of ten were delivered INSIDE their governing date, and NINE of the ten took no extension of time at all and still beat their ORIGINAL contractual date. 11625-4 — sale and purchase agreement 2 Jan 2018, contractual 2 Jan 2020, CCC 4 Dec 2019: 29 days inside. -5 — 14 May 2018, contractual 14 May 2020, CCC 4 Dec 2019: about 5.3 months inside. -7 — 5 Jul 2019 → 5 Jul 2021, CCC 1 Mar 2021: about 4.1 months. -8 — 11 Nov 2019 → 11 Nov 2021, CCC 12 Jul 2021: about 4.0 months. -9 — 8 Sep 2020 → 8 Sep 2022, CCC 3 and 14 Mar 2022: about 6 months. -10 — 5 Apr 2021 → 5 Apr 2023, CCC 18 Oct 2022: about 5.6 months. -11, Sari Alamanda 2 — 12 Aug 2021 → 12 Aug 2023, CCC 28 Apr 2023: about 3.5 months. -12, Sari Alamanda 3 — 15 Jun 2022 → 15 Jun 2024, CCC 21 Mar 2024: about 2.8 months. And -13, this phase’s own sub-phase 1 — 5 Dec 2023 → 5 Dec 2025, CCC 18 Apr 2025 and vacant possession 23 Apr 2025: about 7.5 months inside the original, the widest margin on the whole licence. The tenth is the one with the extension, and it is worth printing in full because it runs the developer’s way too. 11625-6 is the only record on all sixteen that reads pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, with +6 months approved: sale and purchase agreement 5 Nov 2018, original contractual date 5 Nov 2020, revised 5 May 2021, CCC 13 Nov 2020. So it landed 8 days past its original date and about 5.7 months inside its revised one. The extension was granted and barely needed — and it is disclosed by nobody: not by the developer, not by any portal, not by the press. That non-disclosure is of a credit, not of a fault. Widen it to the licence and it holds. Add the two completed Semenyih phases and this licence has twelve completions and no abandonment: statusPemaju: Aktif, projek_sakit_count: 0, projek_terbengkalai_count: 0, mempunyaiKesalahan: null. And on all three Sari Alamanda 4 registrations: no extension has ever been approved, tempohTambahanDiluluskan and serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama are a bare dash, and Lewat — the register’s own late flag — was looked for on each of the three and is NOT set. Licence-wide, pindaanTempohSerahKosong reads Tidak on fifteen of sixteen records and Ya on one, on a licence that mixes Schedule G on fifteen records and Schedule H on one. And the detail that kills an old assumption: the single Ya sits on a Schedule G 24-month record, while the licence’s only Schedule H 36-month record reads Tidak. The field is recorded here; nothing is inferred from it. Three caveats, printed as this site always prints them. One: vp: “-” on -4 through -8 — a CCC is recorded and a vacant possession date is not, so for those five the handover date itself is unpublished. Two: 11625-3 at Semenyih had its permit cancelled before it began and is excluded from every count above. Three: the press described sub-phase 1 as handed over “two months early”, which is right about the quarter and measures against the developer’s own target rather than the statutory date — against the contractual 5 December 2025 it was about 7.5 months early. Say which date you are measuring from, every time.

The district is HULU SELANGOR, not Gombak — settled from the filed plan prefix, and it halves the foreign-buyer floor

This page files the project under Rawang, because that is how the register, all four portals and the Atlas folder locate it. But Rawang is a postal area that spans TWO districts under TWO local authorities, and this site is on the far side of that line. The evidence is a filed document, not a postcode and not a township name. The filed statutory advertisement for 11625-16 prints the approved-plan reference Bil.(12)dlm.MPHS.431/09/H/2023/016-B and, in the same document, the authority’s full name: Majlis Perbandaran Hulu Selangor. The developer’s own e-brochure prints both identically. Two documents, one authority, no contradiction. The MPHS prefix is what settles it — an MPS or MBS prefix would have meant Daerah Gombak, and there is none here. The register corroborates it from the other side: it files daerah: Hulu Selangor on eleven of this licence’s twelve Rawang-area records, including -13 and -14. -16’s daerah is a bare -, so the filed plan prefix is the only thing that supplies it — which is exactly why it was read from a document in the first place. Why none of the obvious shortcuts works here. Not the postcode: three are in circulation across the portals — 48000, 48200 and 48300 — with one publisher’s own two records disagreeing with each other, and no filed document gives a postcode at all. Not the licensee’s register addresses: both are in Kuala Lumpur, about 40 km away, so neither the locality nor the district may be read off them. Not the township name: there is no township called “Alamanda”. And not the coordinates on the record that is actually selling: 11625-16 files a pair about 29 km WEST of its own two sibling records, in the Kuala Selangor direction and nowhere near the parcel (our arithmetic on the longitude difference between the three filed pairs). It is the same record whose daerah is blank, and nothing on this page is located from it. That is the kind of fault that sends a buyer to the wrong place, which is why it is printed rather than quietly worked around. And the consequence is not cosmetic. Daerah Hulu Selangor sits in SELANGOR ZONE 3, where the published minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer is RM1,000,000 — half the RM2,000,000 that applies in the Zone 1 districts of Petaling, Gombak, Hulu Langat, Klang and Sepang. Every other Selangor project page on this site carries the RM2,000,000 figure. This one carries RM1,000,000, and the two must never be swapped: a Rawang development on the Gombak side of the line is a Zone 1 project, and reading this page’s floor across to it would halve the threshold, exactly as reading its floor across to here would double it. The mukim, finally, is NOT FILED by anybody — the register prints none on any record and the filing prints none. The amenity list’s Sungai Choh and Serendah clusters sit in Mukim Serendah, and that is not the same thing as a filed mukim, so this page states none and says to ask for a title search.

Foreign buyers — nought of 224 and nought of 130 clear the floor, one band cannot be determined, and the title closes it anyway

Three separate questions have to be answered in order, and only the third one actually decides it. First, the zone and the floor. Daerah Hulu Selangor is SELANGOR ZONE 3, where the minimum purchase price for a non-citizen is RM1,000,000. Two sources were read separately and agree on the same three zones and the same districts: an eligibility checker that sets Zone 1 (Petaling, Gombak, Hulu Langat, Klang, Sepang) at RM2,000,000, Zone 2 (Kuala Selangor, Kuala Langat) at RM2,000,000 and Zone 3 (Hulu Selangor, Sabak Bernam) at RM1,000,000, attributing the landed restriction to Pekeliling PTG Selangor Bil. 1/2014; and a legal note on PTG Selangor Circular 2/2020, dated 27 April 2020, which independently confirms the three zones and the same district allocation, records a RM1,500,000 strata figure set state-wide for a defined window, and records that under the earlier rules foreigners could buy strata-titled property only. No reachable PTG Selangor circular text exists, so the answer below is to be confirmed with PTG Selangor before anybody pays anything. Second, price — and here the arithmetic produces the sharpest near-miss this site has recorded. 11625-13, sub-phase 1, 224 houses, filed band RM666,050 – RM999,005: the dearest filed house is 99.90% of the floor and misses it by RM995, which is 0.0995%. NOUGHT of the 224 clear it. (Our arithmetic on the register’s own figure.) And nobody anywhere says so. 11625-16, Ixora Garden, 130 houses, filed band RM679,800 – RM955,680: the dearest filed house is 95.57% of the floor and misses it by RM44,320. NOUGHT of the 130 clear it. 11625-14, sub-phase 3, 87 houses, filed band RM793,750 – RM1,029,250: the TOP of that band clears the floor by RM29,250, at 102.93% — so this registration genuinely STRADDLES it, and the answer for those 87 houses is UNDETERMINABLE. It cannot be resolved, and this page will not estimate it: the register files one component row of 87 units with a single band, no per-unit price is filed anywhere by anybody, and that registration’s own filed advertisement cannot be read. “Undeterminable” is the honest answer and it is the one printed. Third, title — and this is what actually settles it, against the buyer, whatever the price says. All three registrations are Schedule G, all three carry the -(L) landed permit tail, the filed tenure is Bebas Selama-lamanya with Hakmilik Kekal, and the developer’s own e-brochure prints “Freehold . Individual Title” in terms and promotes it as the product’s advantage. Individual-title landed property is not permitted to foreign buyers in Selangor — the same source citing Pekeliling PTG Selangor Bil. 1/2014, corroborated by a separate land guide this site has confirmed carries the restriction: strata, and landed strata, only. So the title question bars all 441 licensed houses regardless of price, and the one straddling band never gets asked. And the published landed exception fails too, on the developer’s own evidence. The eligibility source conditions landed purchase on the scheme being gated and guarded. There is no security, guardhouse, fencing or playground item in the filed advertisement, in the e-brochure, on the project page or in any portal’s facility list — and the press reports gated and guarded landed homes as under CONSIDERATION for a later phase, which is affirmative evidence that the present ones are not. There is no filed security schedule on this project at all, so the exception has nothing to attach to. One last bar that does NOT operate here, recorded because four pages on this site differ on it. There is no state-controlled affordable allocation on this phase: no Harga Mampu Milik row on any of the three registrations, no Rumah Selangorku stock, none of the affordable signatures on any of the nine component rows, and no row on the state housing board’s own controlled-price list of 10 September 2026 for this licensee, this township or this district. Absence from that list is not itself a negative — it lists only stock currently open for application — but taken with the register it settles the question. So the filed minima here are open-market figures, and the lowest of them, RM666,050, is about 2.47 times the RM270,000 controlled price this site has seen on genuine affordable rows (ours). Nothing on this phase is price-controlled. The developer does build state-controlled affordable housing — 626 apartments at Semenyih, 70 km away, on a registration whose permit was CANCELLED and which never started. That is the honest answer to “is any of this affordable housing?”, and the answer for Sari Alamanda 4 is no.

The filed particulars for 11625-16 — what is printed, what is NOT PRINTED, and what CANNOT BE READ

For the sub-phase that is actually on sale, the statutory record is complete and readable, and that is unusual enough on this site to say plainly. The filed advertisement for 11625-16 is live on both KPKT HIMS path forms — the register’s own current reference and the older serial form — both carry a text layer, and the two are identical on every statutory field: same licence and validity, same blank permit field, same authority, same plan reference, same tenure, same Bebanan: Tiada, same three unit counts, same six price figures, same Mac 2028. The only difference is which heading line the extraction surfaces first, which is a rendering artefact of one document rather than two generations. So there is NO generation to diff here — a clean null result, which is a finding and not a failed check. WHAT IS PRINTED. The headings FASA 2, Rumah Teres 2 Tingkat and Sari Alamanda Sales Gallery; the developer as AMALAN SETAR (M) SDN BHD 425172-T; the licence 11625/07-2026/0875(A) valid 03/07/2023 sehingga 02/07/2026; the approving authority Majlis Perbandaran Hulu Selangor; the plan Bil.(12)dlm.MPHS.431/09/H/2023/016-B; the building type Rumah Teres 2 Tingkat in three lot sizes 20’ x 60’, 20’ x 65’ and 20’ x 70’; the tenure Bebas Selama-lamanya with Hakmilik Kekal; Bebanan (gadaian) Tanah: Tiada; the unit counts 14 Unit, 56 Unit and 60 Unit; the expected completion Mac 2028; and the six Unit Selling Price figures. An ETHNIC-ALLOCATION price-adjustment field also exists on that filing: its existence is recorded here and its value is not published on this page, is not recorded in this site’s working files, and is withheld in full. WHAT IS NOT PRINTED — the field is absent from a document that otherwise exists and reads cleanly. Sekatan Kepentingan · Keluasan Tanah, the land area · the lot or PT number · the mukim · the daerah · Bilangan Tingkat as a field — “2 Tingkat” appears only inside the type label · the car-park count, which appears only as Car Porch / Anjung kereta, a feature with no number · any Baki Unit or unsold-unit line, so no take-up check is available from the filing at all · any built-up · and any facilities, security, fencing, playground, fixture, sanitary or finishes schedule. WHAT CANNOT BE READ — and this is a different and much more important distinction. 11625-13 and 11625-14 each HAVE a filed advertisement, and neither can be read. All four of their PDFs on the KPKT file server return the empty-text placeholder rather than a 404, and a negative control run in the same session on a deliberately constructed path returned CLIENT_ERROR — which is what proves the documents are PRESENT and simply unreadable, rather than missing. So for those two sub-phases the whole statutory block is register-only: the licence and permit as filed, the approving authority, the plan reference, the tenure, the chargee, Sekatan Kepentingan, the land area, the lot and PT numbers, the car park, the per-type built-up, any unsold-unit line, and whether that ethnic-allocation field exists on them at all. This page writes “cannot be read” and never “none filed”, because the two are not the same position and a buyer is entitled to the difference. A third and weaker state exists on the same licence: seven of its twelve Rawang registrations carry iklan: [] — nothing was ever filed for them at all. And because the register lists only one path form for -13, there is no second generation to diff on either unreadable record; the only diff available anywhere on this project is -16’s, and it came back null. Two consequences that this page honours throughout. It does not say “no interest restriction is filed” — Sekatan Kepentingan is absent from the one readable filing and unreadable on the other two, so it CANNOT BE DETERMINED in either direction. And it does not say “unencumbered” — Bebanan: Tiada is filed for sub-phase 2 only, no bank is named on any surface for any sub-phase, and the field cannot be read on the other two.

The licence was RENEWED FORWARD, not lapsed — and here the FILING is the stale document and the developer is current

Read in the wrong order, this project looks like a developer whose licence has expired. It is the opposite, and the page says so rather than leaving the impression standing. The filed statutory advertisement prints the licence as 11625/07-2026/0875(A), valid 03/07/2023 sehingga 02/07/2026 — expired on 2 July 2026 — and it prints the advertising and sales permit LABEL with the value BLANK. The KPKT register, on all sixteen records, and the developer’s own e-brochure both carry 11625/07-2033/0290(R), valid 3 July 2026 to 2 July 2033. The new licence begins the day after the old one ended. That is a renewal, not a lapse, and it is current at 14 October 2026 with about six years and eight months to run (ours). It was also checked the way this site always checks a licence: reconstructed from the licence’s own /07-2033/ segment, which matches the printed expiry of 2 July 2033. No validity trap. The term is seven years, where most licences on this site run five. That is recorded and nothing is inferred from it. Now the inversion, because it is the useful lesson. On most pages on this site it is the register that lags and the developer’s own material that is stale. Here it is the reverse: the legally FILED document is the superseded generation and the developer’s own panel is the current one. And the brochure does not merely agree — it is RICHER than the filing on two fields that matter. One: it supplies the advertising and sales permit number the filing leaves blank (11625-16/03-2028/0212, 17 March 2026 to 16 March 2028), which is what makes the permit position assessable at all, and assessable from two independent surfaces rather than one. Two: it prints the title type — “Freehold . Individual Title” — which no filed document states, and which turns out to be the fact that decides the foreign-buyer answer. It also gives the only built-up range in existence and the only published distance table, and it directs the reader to the KPKT register to verify it, which is a point in its favour. Two smaller things, both recorded as printed. The brochure prints the permit with an (N) suffix where the register’s project field prints (A). This page publishes the register’s suffix. And on this one licence an (N) twin reads Aktif on one record, Tidak Aktif on another and Tamat on a third — three readings of one letter, with no key published by KPKT. The suffix’s meaning is unresolved, and this page says so rather than choosing. Finally, and this is worth its own sentence: every cross-checkable field on the developer’s own statutory panel is correct. Licence, permit, authority, plan reference, tenure, encumbrance, unit counts, all six prices and the completion month all check out against the filing and the register. The whole family of developer data-strip errors this site usually has to document is simply absent here, and that deserves saying as readily as a gap does.

The permits — cover is continuous, selling began under a valid permit three times out of three, and one expires in seven days

Read for credits as well as for faults, because both are here. The credits first. On all three registrations the register’s own permit history shows no unpermitted interval. 11625-13’s history is EMPTY, which — on the reading this site has settled on — is a positive finding, because an unpermitted gap is impossible at that level; -14 and -16 carry only same-number twins on identical dates, which is a publication artefact and not a gap. And on all three, the first permit PRE-DATES the first sale and purchase agreement: by 34 days on -13 (1 Nov 2023 against 5 Dec 2023), by 205 days on -14 (22 Oct 2024 against 15 May 2025) and by 93 days on -16 (17 Mar 2026 against 18 Jun 2026) (ours). Selling began under a valid permit every single time — three for three — and that is a credit that should be published as one. The current positions. 11625-16: 11625-16/03-2028/0212(A)-(L), 17 March 2026 to 16 March 2028, current — about three months short of the contractual vacant possession date, so it will need renewing before delivery, which is routine. 11625-13: 11625-13/10-2025/1197(N)-(L), expired 31 October 2025 — appropriately, because that scheme was CCC’d six months earlier and there is nothing left to advertise. It carries an (N) in the register’s own project field on a completed scheme, which is recorded exactly as printed and flagged as an open question, never as a defect. And the one that needs watching. 11625-14 holds 11625-14/10-2026/0964(A)-(L), valid 22 October 2024 to 21 OCTOBER 2026 — seven days after this page was built — on a scheme at a 95.49% built band with contractual vacant possession due 15 May 2027. If any of those 87 houses is still being advertised or sold, that permit has to be renewed. Both halves of that sentence belong on the page: it is entirely normal, and it has to happen. Ask for the renewed permit number in writing rather than for reassurance. One further reading that is available here and usually is not. All three permits carry the -(L) tail, which marks a landed scheme, consistent with Schedule G and with individual title. That read is only available because none of the three is a (P) permit — and every one of this licence’s twelve earlier Rawang registrations IS a (P), where the landed-or-strata read is unavailable whatever the date.

Eight completion dates circulate across six sources — three of them govern, and the advertised one is EARLIER than the contract

Any page that prints a single completion date for “Sari Alamanda 4” is wrong, because there are three contractual dates and they are two and a half years apart. The three that govern, each computed the same way — the register’s tarikhPjbPertama plus tempohAsal 24 Bulan under Schedule G: 11625-13: 5 December 2023 → 5 DECEMBER 2025, which was met with CCC on 18 April 2025 and vacant possession on 23 April 2025. 11625-14: 15 May 2025 → 15 MAY 2027. 11625-16: 18 June 2026 → 18 JUNE 2028. And the date that governs YOUR house is 24 months from YOUR OWN agreement, not from the first purchaser’s. The other five statements in circulation, each with its source and what it actually refers to. “Q2 2025, two months early” — the press, April 2026, about sub-phase 1: right about the quarter, and measuring against the developer’s own target rather than the statutory date, which makes the real margin about 7.5 months. “Completion in 2025” — a portal, on a scheme already CCC’d in April 2025, which the same record calls “estimated” while dating itself October 2026. “3Q2026” — the press, about sub-phase 3: that quarter has now passed with ccc: “-” and vp: “-” on the register, so the developer’s own target has slipped while the statutory date still has about seven months to run. Both facts belong on the page, and the statutory one is the one that governs. “2027” and 30 NOVEMBER 2026 — one publisher’s TWO record forms for the SAME sub-phase printing two different completion dates. And Mac 2028 / March 2028 — the filed advertisement on both path forms AND the developer’s own e-brochure, for Ixora Garden. That last one is the finding worth printing on its own. Every surface advertises March 2028 for a sub-phase whose contractual Schedule G date is 18 June 2028. The advertised date is about three months EARLIER than the date the developer is contractually bound to — so the error runs in the BUYER’S favour, which is the opposite of the usual direction on this site. Say which date governs: 18 June 2028 for the first purchaser, and 24 months from your own signature for you. And the caveat that governs every percentage on this page: peratusSiap is BANDED, not measured. On this one licence it reads a flat 5.00 on one record and an oddly precise 95.49 on another, so the field is sometimes banded and sometimes not. It is quoted as the register prints it and NO completion date anywhere on this page is computed from it. What the elapsed-time arithmetic does say, carefully. 11625-14: about 517 of 730 contractual days had elapsed at 14 October 2026, which is 70.8% of the programme against a 95.49% built band — so it is running AHEAD of its own programme (ours). 11625-16: about 118 of 730 days, 16.2% of the programme, against a 5.00% band — behind its own elapsed programme at a very early stage, which is the normal position for an earthworks-phase landed scheme and is presented here as the position rather than as a slip (ours). The float test that would normally sit beside this cannot be run in either direction on any sub-phase: no contractor is named anywhere, all sixteen companies and the contract value sit behind one subscription, and the developer and its whole group are private — no listing, no annual report, no parent.

Price — the three filed bands, the four surfaces that agree to the sen, and the GDV arithmetic run three ways

The only prices on this page are statutory Unit Selling Price minima and maxima, filed per lot size. For 11625-16, Ixora Garden, four surfaces carry all six figures identically and to the sen — the filed advertisement on the older HIMS path form, the filed advertisement on the current one, the register’s three component rows, and the developer’s own e-brochure: 20′×60′ RM679,800.00 – RM895,950.00 (14 units) · 20′×65′ RM695,200.00 – RM915,860.00 (56) · 20′×70′ RM723,800.00 – RM955,680.00 (60) · overall RM679,800 – RM955,680. No spliced band, no orphan figure, no stale generation. This site names splices often enough to owe a clean one a mention. For the other two the figures are the REGISTER’S ALONE, because their filed advertisements cannot be read: 11625-14, 87 units, RM793,750 – RM1,029,250; 11625-13, 224 units, RM666,050 – RM953,130 (105) · RM685,850 – RM971,870 (45) · RM705,650 – RM999,005 (74), band RM666,050 – RM999,005. All three bands are per lot size and never per unit, so no individual house’s price is published anywhere by anybody — which is exactly what makes sub-phase 3’s foreign-buyer answer undeterminable. Not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. Now the gross development values, published WITH their arithmetic rather than repeated as facts. All three sums below are ours, on the register’s own per-row figures. Test one — sub-phase 2. The announced GDV is RM86 m. The sum of the filed MINIMA is 14×679,800 + 56×695,200 + 60×723,800 = RM91,876,400, and the sum of the filed MAXIMA is 14×895,950 + 56×915,860 + 60×955,680 = RM121,172,260. The announced figure sits 6.4% BELOW the sum of the minima, which it mathematically cannot do if it describes the same price list — so it belongs to an earlier, rounded launch generation. Test two — sub-phases 1 and 3 combined. The announced GDV is RM191 m; the sum of the filed minima is 105×666,050 + 45×685,850 + 74×705,650 + 87×793,750 = RM222,072,850. The announced figure sits about 14.0% BELOW it — stale again. Test three — Phase 4 as a whole. The announced GDV is RM405 m; divided by the 634 marketed units that is RM638,801 per unit, which is below the LOWEST filed minimum anywhere on the phase (RM666,050). Two readings are open and both are stated: either the figure is a stale generation, or the unregistered fourth sub-phase is a cheaper product. Nothing decides between them, so neither is asserted. And the control that makes the three tests meaningful: at MASTER-PLAN level the announced RM1.095 bn divided by the 1,608 licensed units on this licence is RM680,970, which sits INSIDE the filed range. There is no stale signal at that level, and saying so is part of running the test honestly. Also on the record and deliberately not divided by anything: a 2017 GDV of RM390 m and a 2018 GDV of RM410 m for the then-67-acre scheme, and a land bank of 42.2 acres with an estimated GDV of RM404.6 m reported in 2026. Each is carried with its date and its source, and none of them is a Phase 4 figure.

The master plan, the rebrand, and the township that is NOT this one

The development a buyer is standing in is Phase 4 of a master plan that has been renamed, and both names are still in circulation, so both are printed here. As the developer and the press now name it: Sari Alamanda — 150 acres, an announced GDV of RM1.095 bn, SIX phases. As it launched in 2017: Alamanda Parklands — 67 acres, 913 landed houses and 24 retail lots, NINE phases, with an announced GDV of RM390 m restated to RM410 m in 2018. Five further parcels were acquired and the scheme was rebranded (the press, 13 April 2026), which is what explains 67 acres becoming 150. The register corroborates the rebrand from the inside: its own records 11625-4 through 11625-10 are all registered Alamanda Parklands @ Rawang, and -11 and -12 are Sari Alamanda 2 and Sari Alamanda 3. There is no township called “Alamanda”, and the word Sari is the first word of the rebranded name — not the tail of anything. Two consequences for what may be said on this page. First: the three parks totalling 5.63 acres and the 3.4-acre recreational lake reported in 2018, and the 24 retail shops handed over with Phase 1, all belong to the ORIGINAL 67-acre parcel. The register’s own coordinates put Phase 4 about 910 m west of the Alamanda Parklands and Sari Alamanda 2–3 cluster (our arithmetic on two filed coordinate pairs), which is consistent with five later parcel acquisitions and means Phase 4 is a separate parcel rather than an infill. So none of those parks, that lake, those shops, that acreage or the 360° virtual tour of the first development may be presented as belonging to Sari Alamanda 4, and none of them appears on this page. Second: the developer’s own line that Sari Alamanda 4 is “the continuation of the existing Sari Alamanda 3” is true of the marketing sequence and misleading on the ground — the register treats them as separate registrations with separate permits, separate bands and separate completion dates, and the coordinates put them about 910 m apart. “The next phase of the same master plan” is accurate; “a continuation” implies an adjacency the filed coordinates do not support. And now the collision that a reader searching “Rawang” will certainly meet, settled here. There is a SECOND large freehold township in the Rawang postal area, called Tamansari, and it has nothing whatever to do with this one. It belongs to a different company — BRDB Developments Sdn Bhd, KPKT developer code 32 — on a 245-acre parcel at Sungai Bakau in RAWANG PROPER, with phases also named after flowering plants. Sari Alamanda belongs to Amalan Setar (M) Sdn Bhd, code 11625, at Sungai Choh near Serendah in Daerah Hulu Selangor. Two different companies, two different parcels, two different districts, two different local authorities and two different foreign-buyer floors. “Sari” here is the first word of Sari Alamanda; it is not the tail of Taman-sari. Nothing crosses between them on this site — not a figure, not a distance, not a district, not a developer term, not an image and not a licence flag. Three further unrelated things share the word “Alamanda”: a development of that name in a completely different part of Selangor, a shopping centre 60 km away, and a licensee whose name contains the word and which builds 30 houses in another district entirely — it is the only licensee the register returns for a search on “Alamanda”, and it is NOT this developer. That is why this page identifies everything by KPKT code.

The award — real, project-level, and carrying two caveats that must travel with it

There is a genuine, independently corroborated, project-level award here, which is rarer on this site than the opposite, and it comes with two things a buyer is entitled to know. The award. Best Mass Market Landed Development (Central) at the 13th PropertyGuru Asia Awards Malaysia 2026 with iProperty, gala Friday 2 October 2026 at The St. Regis Kuala Lumpur. The recipient, as both surfaces name it, is Ixora Garden – Sari Alamanda 4 Phase 2 by Amalan Setar (M) Sdn Bhd. The awarding body’s own pages list exactly that project, under exactly that category, for exactly that edition, under its Development Awards heading — so the project, the category and the edition are corroborated by the body itself, which is more than most awards on this site survive. The developer’s own post of 7 October 2026 calls the project the “Winner” of the category and says it will represent Malaysia at a regional grand final in December 2026. Caveat one: the word “Winner” is the DEVELOPER’S, not the awarding body’s. The body’s own listing carries NO result designation at all — no “Winner”, no “Highly Commended” — and its page describes the gala in the future tense while recording a modification date after it. So the publishable form is the precise one: listed by the awarding body in the Best Mass Market Landed Development (Central) category at the 13th PropertyGuru Asia Awards Malaysia 2026; the developer states that it won. Caveat two: the awarding body is not an independent third party here. The awards are run by PropertyGuru with iProperty — and this site counts propertyguru.com.my and iproperty.com.my as ONE publisher, because they share listing identifiers. So the award, the portal record of the project and the “independent” corroboration of the award all come from one house. That is said here not to diminish the award but because no other source says it, and a buyer weighing an award is entitled to know who gave it. And the scope, which matters most of the three. The award attaches to SUB-PHASE 2 ONLY — Ixora Garden, registration 11625-16, 130 houses. It is not an award for “Sari Alamanda 4” as a whole, not for sub-phase 1 or 3, not for the unregistered fourth sub-phase, not for the 150-acre master plan and not for the developer. The developer has no other award of any kind: its own About page claims none, stating a mission to achieve recognition and a quality goal — aspirations, not awards. So there is no sibling award to borrow and no corporate award to mis-attribute, which is a clean position and the opposite of several cases on this site. One false lead is recorded so nobody repeats it: a search pairing this developer’s name with a generic business phrase surfaces a 2017 article about a completely different developer’s project in a completely different township. It was refused.

Green certification — none, none claimed, and the two facts match

There is no GreenRE rating, no GBI rating and no QLASSIC score on this project, and the developer claims nothing green on any surface. Those two facts matching is the clean outcome, and this page credits it. What was actually read, and how strong each negative is. GreenRE Platinum: the full list of 95 rows was read and it CLOSED CLEANLY on its last row rather than truncating — so this is a genuine clean negative, not an untested one. Gold (130 rows), Silver (141) and Bronze (about 332) all TRUNCATE mid-field, so for those three the honest statement is “no entry in the reachable portion”, searched against the licensee’s name, the scheme name, the master plan’s former name, the product names and the locality. And the stronger test: the Bronze certification-entry list was read separately and covers 4 April 2024 to 30 March 2026 — which is exactly the right window for a March 2026 permit and an April 2026 launch — with no matching developer cell on any of those keywords. That makes this a stronger negative than most. GBI’s own certified-buildings directory returns a 404, so GBI is INCONCLUSIVE and is never written as a negative. No QLASSIC score is published on any reachable surface. Seventeen rows were examined and refused, and four of the reasons are worth printing because they are the traps a rebrand creates. The master plan’s FORMER name is Alamanda Parklands, so five unrelated licensees with Parkland in their names hold ratings — including one at GOLD on a NON-RESIDENTIAL tool, and one whose certification date falls eleven days before this project’s own permit, which is exactly the coincidence that invites a wrong attribution. A GOLD row sits on an industrial campus whose name contains this project’s own locality, on an industrial assessment tool. A Silver row carries the name of one of this phase’s own house products, held by a company with no relation to this licensee. And two Silver rows belong to a company whose name contains the licensee’s own name one letter longer — it is returned by a search on that word, and it is a different company. Also refused: two rows for a different developer’s scheme in the same town, a row for a scheme in a nearby locality this site already covers separately, and the three unrelated “Alamanda” collisions. Not one borrowed rating appears on this page. The one environment-adjacent claim that does exist, and what it actually is. The developer’s About page calls a nearby public road “Malaysia’s tallest highway” — a claim about a road, used to locate the project, attributed to the developer and not restated here as a project attribute. There is no “low density”, “green”, “eco”, “sustainable” or “first in Malaysia” claim anywhere — not on the site, not in the brochure, not in the filing. For a developer’s own material that is unusually restrained, and this page says so as readily as it names over-claiming elsewhere.

Density, distances and the register’s own errors — with every denominator named and six of them refused

There is NO filed parcel area on any of the three registrations. Keluasan Tanah is not printed on the one readable filing and cannot be read on the other two. So every acreage on this page is a press or developer figure and is labelled as one. Sub-phase 1: 16 acres. Sub-phase 2 (Ixora Garden): 9 acres. Sub-phase 3: 4.5 acres. All three from the press, 13 April 2026. Phase 4 as a whole: 38.6 acres (press) or “about 40 acres” (the developer’s own project page, which also gives 634 units). 16 + 9 + 4.5 = 29.5 acres accounted for, leaving about 9.1 acres for the unregistered fourth sub-phase (ours; nobody publishes it). The densities, each with its denominator named. Ixora Garden: 130 ÷ 9 acres = 14.44 units per acre. Sub-phase 1: 224 ÷ 16 = 14.00. Sub-phase 3: 87 ÷ 4.5 = 19.33. Phase 4 on the developer’s own two figures: 634 ÷ 40 = 15.85, and on the press acreage 634 ÷ 38.6 = 16.42, which mixes two sources and is labelled as doing so. About 14 to 16 units per acre on a two-storey terrace scheme — and the developer makes NO density claim at all, so there is nothing to refute. A cross-check rather than a refusal, because an acreage can be corroborated. Against the filed lot dimensions: Ixora Garden’s saleable lot area is 14×1,200 + 56×1,300 + 60×1,400 = 173,600 sq ft against 9 acres = 392,040 sq ft, a net-to-gross of 44.3% — a normal figure for landed with roads, drainage and reserves, so the 9 acres is SOUND. Sub-phase 1: 288,100 against 696,960 sq ft = 41.3%, also plausible, so the 16 acres is sound. Sub-phase 3: 121,800 against 196,020 = 62.1%, which is HIGH for a standalone parcel — consistent with a late infill sharing roads already built, and flagged, because the lot size used is a product-card figure and not a filed one. (All of this arithmetic is ours.) Six denominators were refused, and two of them would have produced plausible-looking nonsense. The 150-acre master plan (1,608 licensed units ÷ 150 = a bogus 10.7 per acre: it carries six phases, 24 retail lots, parks and a lake, and the unit total excludes every unlicensed unit). The original 67 acres — that is the first development, a different parcel about 910 m east. The 42.2-acre land bank — undeveloped, and not Phase 4. The register’s keluasan of 155–168 m² — it is a BUILT-UP, and reading it as a parcel area would understate a 20′×70′ lot about eightfold and the parcel by a factor of thousands. The three parks of 5.63 acres and the 3.4-acre lake — they belong to the original parcel and they are landscape, not a development area. And the 38.6-acre Phase 4 figure against only the 441 LICENSED units (= 11.4 per acre) — a mismatched numerator and denominator, because those 38.6 acres carry 634 marketed units including the unregistered 193. Never mix a licensed count with a marketed acreage. The built-up trap, corroborated here to the square foot. The register’s keluasan is a built-up in m², not a land area. 11625-14’s 160 mps × 10.7639 = 1,722.2 sq ft (our conversion), and the built-up published for that same single type is 1,722 sq ft. 11625-16’s 160–168 mps = 1,722–1,808 sq ft against the developer’s and the press’s marketed 1,718–1,810 sq ft. No built-up is filed on any of the three registrations, and the developer publishes one range for all three Ixora lot sizes, so no per-type built-up exists for the live sub-phase from any source. Two publishers also go wrong on this field in ways worth naming: one contradicts itself inside a single record, with 1,668 sq ft in its header against 1,657 sq ft on every type row; and one prints the LOT DIMENSION in its build-up field. Distances are published only where a source publishes them, with the origin attached. The developer’s own e-brochure gives 28 distances in kilometres, which is generous, and two caveats travel with every one of them: it states NO origin point — not the gallery, not the entrance, not a named lot — and does not say whether the figures are straight-line or driving; and its layout does not survive text extraction, so each name-to-figure pairing is read from the document’s own print order within its group. What the table proves is worth stating: the nearest school of any kind is 5.1 km and the nearest bank is 9.1 km, with every Rawang-town amenity 7.6–16.4 km away. The developer’s own figures are what show that the site is NOT in Rawang town. The nearest transport item on the table, an ECRL station at 5 km, is marked “Future development” by the developer itself and HAS NO OPENING DATE on any surface; the only operating station is at 9.4 km. No highway distance is published by anybody — four sources name the roads and not one attaches a figure — so this page prints none, and the only travel time it will carry is an attributed, dated 2018 press line about an earlier phase. A portal’s unsourced 45-minute claim is refused. And one figure is published with its own disagreement attached: a hospital at 19.1 km on this developer’s table, where a neighbouring developer’s own table puts a hospital of the same name at 8.5 km from its own site. Either they measure to different branches or one is wrong; this page publishes the developer’s own figure and does not reconcile it.

Facilities — there is no facilities list at all, and that is the finding

This is not a page that could not find the facilities list. There is no facilities list. The filed statutory advertisement carries NO facilities schedule — no clubhouse, no playground, no guardhouse, no fencing, no landscape item, nothing. It carries the house type, the lot sizes, the unit counts and the prices. The developer’s own e-brochure carries no facilities schedule and no specification schedule either — only four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a car porch and a family area as unit features, plus the 28-row amenity table, which is off-site amenities and not facilities. The developer’s project page has no facilities section at all, only a location-and-amenities section. And its own Ixora Garden post offers “wide roads, landscaped surroundings and a family-friendly neighbourhood” — adjectives, not a schedule. What the portals add, which is flagged here and not adopted. One publisher lists a car park as a common facility and adds landscaped parks, playgrounds and jogging tracks in its body text, none of which appears on any developer or filed surface; a second lists “car park, others, park and garden”; a third shows a single unlabelled playground icon while its own body text marks its facility description as “expected” or inferred, which is unusually honest of it and worth quoting; and a fourth states outright that “no on-site facilities are listed”. This page carries no facility that no developer or filed surface supports. Two things that follow from that, and both matter. First: the three parks totalling 5.63 acres and the 3.4-acre recreational lake belong to the ORIGINAL 67-acre first development, about 910 m east on the register’s own coordinates. They are not Sari Alamanda 4 facilities and they are not presented as such anywhere on this page. Second, and this is the one with legal consequences: NO SECURITY ITEM EXISTS ON ANY SURFACE — no guardhouse, no fencing, no boom gate, no patrol — and the press reports gated and guarded landed homes as under CONSIDERATION for a LATER phase, which is affirmative evidence that these phases are not gated. So no “gated and guarded” claim appears on this page in either language, and the gated-and-guarded route to foreign eligibility has nothing to attach to. There is also no fixture, sanitary, electrical or finishes schedule on any surface, filed or marketed, and no maintenance charge, sinking fund or service charge is published by anybody. These are individual-title landed houses, so there may be none — and no source says either way, which is why this page says neither.

Not published, therefore not on this page — the full list, with the reason for each

Every item below is something a buyer would reasonably ask and no source answers. The reasons differ, and the difference is the point. The parcel area of any sub-phase as a FILED figure — Keluasan Tanah is not printed on the one readable filing and cannot be read on the other two, and the register’s keluasan is a built-up. Only press and developer acreages exist. The lot or PT number and the mukim — printed by nobody, filed by nobody. The chargee of sub-phases 1 and 3 — the field cannot be read; Tiada is filed for sub-phase 2 only, so the phase as a whole is not called unencumbered. Sekatan Kepentingan on all three — absent from the readable filing and unreadable on the other two, so it CANNOT BE DETERMINED in either direction, which is not the same as none being filed. The contractor, the architect and fourteen consultant roles — sixteen companies, the project details and the exact value all sit behind one subscription, and the group is private, so there is no listing or annual-report route either. Any construction commencement date for -14 or -16 — which is why the float test cannot be run in either direction. Sub-phase 4 entirely — 193 units by subtraction, no registration, no permit, no price, no product name, no date. The car-park bay count — only Car Porch / Anjung kereta, on every surface, with no number. Any fixture, sanitary, electrical or finishes schedule — no specification table exists anywhere, filed or marketed. Any facilities schedule, and any security, guardhouse or fencing commitment. Any maintenance charge, sinking fund or service charge. Which houses are released or remaining — no Baki Unit line exists on any filing, so the press statement that sub-phase 1 is fully sold with 90% occupancy cannot be tested at all; it is attributed to the press and to April 2026 and it is not restated here as a fact. Any highway, interchange or Kuala Lumpur distance. The ECRL station’s opening date — “future development”, no date anywhere. Whether the 24 retail lots carry individual or strata title, and their status — no document addresses them. Per-unit prices — the filed bands are per lot size, which is exactly what makes sub-phase 3’s foreign-buyer answer undeterminable. Any GreenRE, GBI or QLASSIC assessment — none exists and none is claimed. And three statements by others that this page carries only as attributed statements, because no record can test them. “Fully sold” and “90% occupancy” on sub-phase 1 — the press, April 2026, and there is no unsold-unit line anywhere to check them against. “About 3,700 completed units” since 2004 and “over RM1 billion” delivered — the developer’s own About page, with no breakdown to verify. And the 2018 line that this developer was “probably the only one offering double-storey houses below RM400,000 in the area” — which is now FALSE of this project by its own filings, where the lowest filed minimum anywhere on Phase 4 is RM666,050 and on the live sub-phase RM679,800. That claim belongs to 2018 and to an earlier phase; repeating it on a 2026 page would mislead on price by a factor of about 1.7, so it is named here only in order to be retired.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s rule on this site is absolute, and it is worth stating before the list rather than after it: no page here publishes a discount, a rebate, a nett price, a promotion or freebie or incentive value, an agency commission, a Bumiputera allocation value, a guaranteed-rental rate or a yield projection. Those belong in a conversation with the documents in front of you, not on a web page. The six words in this paragraph are the only places any of them appears anywhere on this page, in either language. (1) Four separate families of withheld figure exist on this project, and the page names which kind each is — because withholding without saying what was withheld reads like concealing a defect. KIND ONE: the ethnic-allocation price-adjustment field in the filed advertisement for 11625-16. It exists. Its existence is published here; its value is not published, is not recorded in this site’s working files at all, and is withheld in full. (Whether the same field exists on -13 or -14 cannot be read.) KIND TWO: a portal “from” figure on the COMPLETED sub-phase 1 that sits far below that registration’s filed statutory minimum. This is a SUB-SALE ASKING FLOOR, not a developer price — it is drawn from fourteen current listings, eleven for sale and three for rent, on a sub-phase whose CCC was 18 April 2025, eighteen months ago. On a scheme delivered in April 2025 a resale asking floor below the original filed minimum is UNREMARKABLE, and saying so is part of withholding it honestly. Two caveats go with it: the gap is large for an eighteen-month-old scheme and is unexplained; and that publisher’s own per-square-foot range multiplied by the register’s built-up reproduces its own “from” figure, so the record is at least internally consistent and the discrepancy is not a typographical error. Neither figure is published. KIND THREE: two buyer-inducement items on the developer’s own home page and in its news feed. The item, the value and the mechanic are all withheld in full — and one image asset whose own TITLE embeds one of them is refused from this page’s image set on that ground alone. KIND FOUR: a portal per-square-foot range derived from those same sub-sale asking prices. Withheld. And the thing that is genuinely clean, which deserves saying as loudly as the four refusals: there is NO below-minimum figure anywhere for the LIVE sub-phase. Every price surface for Ixora Garden — the filed advertisement on both path forms, the register, the developer’s own e-brochure and the press’s own “starting price” — carries the filed statutory minimum of RM679,800 exactly. There is nothing to withhold on the sub-phase that is actually selling, and that is rarer on this site than the opposite. (2) What IS published, and it is the only kind of price on this page. The statutory Unit Selling Price minima and maxima from the legally filed advertisement particulars and the KPKT register’s own component rows: RM679,800 – RM955,680 on 11625-16, RM793,750 – RM1,029,250 on 11625-14, and RM666,050 – RM999,005 on 11625-13, each filed per lot size. Labelled as such every time, and not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. The announced gross development values are published with their arithmetic rather than as facts, because three of the four tests put the announced figure BELOW the sum of the filed minima, which marks a superseded launch generation. (3) Figures that no source publishes at all. This page carries no parcel area as a filed figure, no lot or PT number, no mukim, no chargee for two of the three registrations, no interest restriction in either direction, no contractor, no architect, no consultant, no commencement date, no car-park bay count, no built-up as a filed figure, no per-type built-up for the live sub-phase, no unsold-unit count, no facilities schedule, no security commitment, no fixture or finishes schedule, no maintenance charge, no QLASSIC score and no green rating. Each of those is listed above with the reason it is absent, and the reasons are not interchangeable: some lines are NOT PRINTED on a filed document that exists and reads cleanly; two whole filings CANNOT BE READ although they exist; seven registrations on this licence have NOTHING FILED AT ALL; and some things are published by nobody anywhere. (4) Distances, dates and imagery nobody can source. Twenty-eight distances ARE published by the developer and they are reproduced here with that origin attached, with the basis stated as undefined and with the pairings stated as read from print order. No highway distance, no Kuala Lumpur distance and no drive time is published except one attributed, dated 2018 press line, and a portal’s unsourced minute-claim is refused. The ECRL station’s 5 km never appears without the words “not yet built, no opening date”. No completion date on this page is computed from peratusSiap, which is a banded register value. Thirteen images are published, every one of them the developer’s own and every one identified by the title it carries in the developer’s own system — and further developer images exist whose subjects are not established, which is why they are not here. No 2024 asset is captioned as the sub-phase that was unveiled in 2026, and the one asset whose subject the developer itself does not name is published without a subject. (5) And nothing on this page is read across from another project. Not from this licensee’s thirteen other registrations, not from the first development 910 m to the east, not from the other large freehold township in the Rawang postal area, which belongs to a different company in a different district, and not from any other Rawang or Selangor page on this site. Every figure is traced to a named published source and dated to the day it was read. Where two sources disagree, both are printed and the disagreement is named rather than resolved. Where a figure is not published, this page says so instead of filling the gap. Marketing information compiled from public records: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.

Sari Alamanda 4 @ Rawang — the answers, with the register code attached to each

Also worth seeing

Published 14 October 2026 · last verified 14 October 2026 against the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register project records 11625-13, 11625-14 and 11625-16, the licensee record for developer code 11625 and the full serial walk 11625-1 to 11625-18; the filed statutory advertisement for 11625-16 on both KPKT HIMS path forms, with a negative control run to establish that 11625-13’s and 11625-14’s filings are present and unreadable rather than missing; the developer’s own statutory panel, project page, award post and About page, each read separately; the awarding body’s own listing; the GreenRE Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze registers and the Bronze certification-entry list; the GBI directory, which returns a 404 and is therefore inconclusive; the state housing board’s controlled-price list of 10 September 2026; and two independent sources for the Selangor foreign-buyer zones. Marketing information, not an offer.