Stellaris @ Riana Dutamas, Segambut, Kuala Lumpur — the word Stellaris appears in no filing, no register field and no green-certification row. The registered scheme is RESIDENSI RIANA DUTAMAS 3, KPKT project 19221-3: 1,143 Schedule H homes, and the advertising and sales permit covers all 1,143 of them

Yes — you searched the marketing name, and the marketing name is in no filing. The word Stellaris appears nowhere in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government’s TEDUH register, nowhere in either of the two live filed advertisement generations, nowhere in the filed newspaper advertisement, and nowhere in the GreenRE certification register. It exists only on the developer’s own website, in its three press releases, on two portal records and in agency folder names.

What to search instead: the project code 19221-3, or the registered name RESIDENSI RIANA DUTAMAS 3. Either resolves. And be aware the superseded filed brochure calls it Riana Dutamas 3, without Residensi — so there are, in total, five name forms in circulation for one scheme.

Here is the part that is worth understanding, because it explains why this keeps happening: one developer licence carries THREE different naming conventions across its three register rows, and the green-certification register uses a FOURTH. 19221-1 is registered under the bare township name Riana Dutamas but marketed as Savio. 19221-2 is registered under its marketing name Savvy @ Riana Dutamas, and the green register calls that same phase Residensi Riana Dutamas 2, a name no register field holds. 19221-3 is registered under the serial name Residensi Riana Dutamas 3 and marketed as Stellaris. That is why every figure on this page carries its register code: a number from the wrong row is worse than no number.

It is a phase — the third and final phase of the Riana Dutamas master development on Jalan Segambut, under the same developer licence 19221 as the two phases before it. It is not a standalone scheme and its register code is 19221-3.

And here is the reassuring part, which is worth stating because it is not guaranteed: the serial order matches the marketing order. Marketed Phase 1 = 19221-1 (Savio), Phase 2 = 19221-2 (Savvy), Phase 3 = 19221-3 (Stellaris). Elsewhere in this series a register serial has run backwards against the developer’s own phase numbering, so a client counting phases and a client reading the register ended up at different buildings. Here they do not.

The developer’s own releases call it “the final chapter” and “the final entry” to Riana Dutamas, and the register supports that: 19221-4 returns a client error, so the serial walk ends at -3, and the licensee’s own record reads bilanganProjek: 3. Walk and count agree. There is no dormant fourth phase and no cancelled-permit record on this licence.

Why it matters practically: you will be living next to two completed phases, by the same licensee, on the same site — which is exactly why this page is careful to keep their awards, their green certifications, their facilities and their price history off this page. Their track record on DELIVERY, however, is directly relevant and is set out in full below.

Your counterparty is 368 SEGAMBUT SDN. BHD., registration number 201301032770 (1062599-A), TEDUH developer code 19221, developer licence 19221/02-2028/0265(A). It is NOT “IJM Land” and NOT “FCW Holdings”, even though every marketing surface names those two. It is a special-purpose vehicle.

One useful detail: the registration number is printed in the FILING ITSELF — verbatim, in both filed brochures and in the filed newspaper advertisement. That is unusual. On most projects in this series the licensee’s number has to be reconstructed from a corporate source, or cannot be found at all. No registration number on this page came from a portal field.

The ownership is a 50:50 joint venture, and the split comes from exactly one source. FCW Holdings Berhad (3116-K): 250,000 ordinary shares, 50%. IJM Land Berhad (187405-T): 250,000 ordinary shares, 50%. That is from IJM’s own corporate-structure listing, which also prints the SPV’s nature of business and records no subsidiary under it. No press report, neither launch release and no portal gives the split — four press reports say only “a joint venture”. IJM Land Berhad is the property arm of IJM Corporation Berhad and gives its own number as 198901010104 (187405-T); FCW Holdings Berhad is the other half.

Register health, as printed: status Aktif; mempunyaiKesalahan: null — no offence flag at all; projek_sakit 0 and projek_terbengkalai 0 — no sick and no abandoned project on this licensee.

Every HOME is covered. All 1,143 of 1,143 — one hundred per cent. APDL 19221-3/01-2028/0022(A)-(S), status Aktif, valid 8 January 2025 to 7 January 2028 (current, about 455 days to run as at 9 October 2026), covers the register’s two component rows of 478 + 665 = 1,143 units, both Pangsapuri Servis — which is exactly the 1,143 the marketing claims. That is a genuinely good result and it deserves the credit.

But the development the developer describes is larger than the licence, and the gap is four retail units. IJM Land’s first release names “exclusive retail lots … Stellar Shoppes”; its second release and The Star both say four strata retail units. None of them appears in the register, in either filed brochure, or in any filed price band.

In plain language, what a buyer of one of those four would NOT have: no prescribed Schedule H or Schedule G sale and purchase agreement; no statutory liquidated-damages formula if delivery is late; no section 7A housing development account holding their progress payments; no statutory 24-month defect liability period; and no route to the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. Their contract would be whatever the developer writes. And no filed advertisement means no filed price, no filed completion date and no filed built-up either.

No document anywhere states those four units’ size, price, title type, contract form or housing-law status. That silence is the finding, and this page reports it rather than guessing at it. Retail lots are very commonly commercial title and outside the HDA 1966, which would explain why they hold no licence — but that is a reading, not a filed fact. The 1,143 homes are all inside the Act.

The date that governs is 23 October 2029. That is the register’s serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama — the revised contractual vacant possession date under the Schedule H agreement, read with an approved extension of +16 months on an original 36-month period that ran from the first SPA on 23 June 2025.

There are NINE completion dates in circulation across SEVEN sources, and all nine are in the timeline above. The ones most likely to mislead you: the developer’s own website says Q2 2029, which is earlier than its own filing and is not the governing date; its superseded filed brochure and superseded filed newspaper advertisement both said November 2027, which was earlier than even the original contractual date; one portal prints a precise 31 July 2029 that no filed document supports; another says 2027 in one field and 2029 in another on the same page; and a press calculation of about September or October 2028 is a CONTRACTOR-PROGRAMME date, not a vacant-possession date, and must never be read as one.

And here is the credit line: the developer’s own CURRENT filed brochure prints Oktober 2029 — the REVISED date, not the stale one. Most filed brochures in this series leave the original date standing after an extension is approved. This one did not, and that is worth saying out loud.

Practically: your own deadline runs from your own SPA, not from the project’s first one, so ask for your delivery date in writing and check it against the register’s revised date before you sign.

Worried, no. Informed, yes — and the information cuts both ways.

The facts first. 19221-3 reads pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: +16 Bulan, tempohPembinaanBaharu: 52 Bulan, moving vacant possession from 23 June 2028 to 23 October 2029. It has NOT been consumed: at 20.00% built there are about 623 days to the original date and 1,110 to the revised one. Nothing here supports calling this project late.

The arithmetic points to a re-baselining rather than a slip. The main building contract went to Inta Bina Sdn Bhd on 11 August 2025: RM264.5 million, 38 months commencing 18 August 2025 — a programme that ends about 18 October 2028, which is 117 days AFTER the original 23 June 2028 date. So the original delivery date was arithmetically unreachable on the day the contract was signed. The revised date leaves roughly twelve months of float after practical completion. Always check a contract award against the original date before calling an extension a delay.

Now the part nobody publishes, and the most useful thing on this page: the whole licence’s delivery record. All three phases of licence 19221 carry an approved extension, and the extension shrinks each time: 19221-1 (Savio) took +22 months (original 22 Dec 2020, revised 22 Oct 2022) and got its CCC on 30 August 2021 — 251 days past its original date but 418 days INSIDE its revised one. 19221-2 (Savvy) took +17 months (original 29 Nov 2023, revised 29 Apr 2025) and delivered CCC 3 October 2024, vacant possession 1 November 2024 — 338 days past its original but 179 days INSIDE its revised date. 19221-3 has taken +16 months.

Read honestly: this developer has twice taken an extension and twice delivered within it, which is a better record than a bare Ya suggests — and it has NEVER yet delivered a phase of this township by its original contractual date. So plan on 23 October 2029, not on 23 June 2028. And draw no rule from the pindaan field itself: all three records are Jadual H, 36 months and Ya, so the field alone predicts nothing. No consumer source states any of this.

Read the current one, and know what moved. Two filed generations are live under serial 19221: the CURRENT one on the P45 path, which is the one the register itself links, and a SUPERSEDED one on the older 19221/19221-3/ path, which also carries a filed newspaper advertisement. SIX fields moved between them, and one of the six is the most consequential field on this whole page.

The field that matters most is the building-plan approval. BP U1 OSC 2024 0760 became DBKL.JKB.BP U1 OSC 2026 0324(6) — a DIFFERENT DBKL approval, two years later. That is a building-plan RE-APPROVAL, not a reprint of the same document, and no source anywhere explains what changed. Two practical consequences. First, the 37-versus-40-storey dispute has an obvious candidate explanation in a re-approved plan — and because no source says so, this page does not say so either; it publishes the register’s 40 and names the others. Second, the three facility renders on this page are dated 5–7 March 2025, a year BEFORE the 2026 approval, so they were produced under the superseded plan — which is exactly why they are captioned as artist’s impressions of a superseded generation and not as pictures of the approved scheme.

What did NOT move, and this is the good news: the price bands (to the sen), the unit counts, the built-up ranges, the chargee, the tenure, the interest restriction and the car-park allocation are all identical across both generations. So this is not a re-pricing and not a re-massing of the scheme — and it is certainly not a splice, which is what you get on some projects where a register carries an old minimum against a new maximum.

Three answers exist and no filed figure settles it, so this page publishes the register’s number and names the others.

Bilangan Tingkat is NOT PRINTED in EITHER filed generation. That is the root of the problem: there is no statutory figure to appeal to. The TEDUH register files 40 on BOTH component rows. IJM Land’s own first release says “two 37-storey towers”. One portal says “two towers of 37 and 40 storeys”, which is a third answer and reconciles neither.

The obvious candidate explanation is the building-plan re-approval of 2026 — a plan approved in 2024 and re-approved in 2026 could easily have changed a storey count. But no source anywhere says that is what happened, so this page will not assert it.

On the number of BLOCKS, by contrast, the record is clean: two. The register files two component rows, both filed generations print Blok A and Blok B, and the main building contract is for two blocks. One portal contradicts itself on its own page with Jumlah blok: 1 against its own “two towers” summary — ignore it.

Ask for the approved storey count in writing, against plan approval DBKL.JKB.BP U1 OSC 2026 0324(6), and ask which floor your unit is on relative to the top.

The honest answer is: possibly, for some units, and HOW MANY cannot be determined from any public document. This page says that rather than estimating it.

The threshold first, and the authority settles it in the buyer’s favour. The filed approving authority is Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, on three filed surfaces, and both filed plan references are in the DBKL BP — OSC — form; the register reads negeri: WP Kuala Lumpur. So the applicable floor is the Kuala Lumpur / Federal Territory minimum purchase price of RM1,000,000, with consent processed by the Economic Planning Unit — NOT Selangor’s RM2,000,000. Two published guides give RM1,000,000 for Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan, citing the Ministry of Economy’s Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah effective 13 July 2022, the EPU foreign-acquisition guidelines and section 433B of the National Land Code. Both warn the thresholds are state-set and change, so confirm current EPU practice.

Title does not bar you. Tenure is freehold (Pegangan Kekal), the product is strata (confirmed three ways: Pangsapuri Servis, Jadual H, permit tail -(S)), and Sekatan Kepentingan is filed as NIL in BOTH generations — the single strongest filed bar on a foreign buyer is simply absent here.

Price is where it becomes genuinely indeterminate. Blok A is filed at RM742,800–RM1,270,800: the minimum is 74.28% of the floor and the maximum is 1.27 times it. Blok B is filed at RM698,800–RM1,127,800: the minimum is 69.88% of the floor and the maximum 1.13 times it. BOTH BANDS STRADDLE THE FLOOR. And because the filing gives a minimum and a maximum PER BLOCK ONLY, across ten type codes, with no per-type price filed anywhere, how many of the 1,143 units clear RM1,000,000 CANNOT be determined from any public document. Not estimated here, not bracketed.

What can be said: a foreign buyer cannot assume eligibility at this project; the entry-level types certainly do not clear the floor; and the question has to be answered unit by unit from the developer’s own price list, which is not a public document. There is also no superseded generation to appeal to — both filed generations carry identical bands. Not one of the nine sources consulted for this page mentions the foreign-buyer floor at all: the developer’s own page and both of its releases are silent on it. And note there is no filed security item of any kind, so this page does not repeat any portal’s “gated and guarded” tag — which matters less in Kuala Lumpur than in Selangor Zone 1, but still means you should get any security commitment in writing.

What this page publishes is the filed statutory Unit Selling Price range, because that is the legally filed sale and purchase price range and a matter of public record: Blok A RM742,800 – RM1,270,800 and Blok B RM698,800 – RM1,127,800. That is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.

It agrees to the sen across four surfaces and two generations: the current filed brochure, the superseded filed brochure, the superseded filed newspaper advertisement, and the public KPKT TEDUH register. Zero variance. No splice. That is the cleanest price result on this site after one other project, and it is worth crediting — elsewhere a register has been found carrying an old minimum against a new maximum.

Here is the arithmetic that makes the filed minimum credible, and it is a clean result. The sum of the filed minima is (478 × RM742,800) + (665 × RM698,800) = RM819,760,400. The announced gross development value is RM821 million — which is 1.0015 times that figure. The sum of the filed maxima is RM1,357,429,400, so the announced GDV is 60.5% of it. So the GDV sits INSIDE the filed band, which is a good sign — but it sits essentially exactly ON THE FLOOR of it, which means the developer’s own GDV assumes every unit transacts at its block minimum and makes no allowance at all for the four retail units.

Why there is no “from” figure here. THREE distinct figures below the filed statutory minimum are in circulation, and this page reproduces none of them. TWO of the three are on the DEVELOPER’S OWN PAGES — two different below-minimum figures, two days apart, in its 3 March and 5 March 2025 releases, with the later one also on its official project page. A third is a portal price band whose minimum sits below the filed minimum. Counting carriers correctly: thestar.com.my and starproperty.my are ONE publisher, and propertyguru.com.my and iproperty.com.my are ALSO one publisher — proved here by the shared project id 20420 on both. So the carriers are TWO independent publishers PLUS THE DEVELOPER ITSELF — and the developer carrying a figure below its own filed statutory minimum is the sharper point.

Credit where it is due: two publishers print the filed figure correctly. EdgeProp prints “Starting from RM698,800” — the filed Blok B minimum exactly — and so does PropertyGuru on its 20420 record. Note also that the same publisher contradicts itself: the filed minimum on one of its domains, a below-minimum band on the other. The Edge group carries no below-minimum figure at all. And the reverse trap was checked: there is no affordable-unit suffix pair in the filed type schedule and no affordable allocation, so the filed minimum IS the open-market minimum.

Anything beyond the filed range is unit-specific and changes week by week. Ask Louis, and he will tell you what is current and show you the filed document it comes from.

The filing and the developer’s own website disagree, and this page resolves neither.

BOTH filed generations say No Tempat Letak Kereta: Minima 1 Petak Parkir — a minimum of one bay. IJM Land’s own release and its own official project page say “Minimum 2 carpark bays” and “at least two bays per unit”.

Be precise about what the conflict is. The filing asserts a minimum of one; it does not assert that only one is provided, so the two statements are not strictly contradictory as statements of fact. But the developer’s own STATUTORY advertisement and its own website disagree on the number a buyer is PROMISED, and that is a real difference to a purchaser. This is the most important marketing-versus-filing conflict on this project.

What to do: get the bay allocation for your specific unit written into the SPA, not taken from a brochure or a website. And note that “24 EV bays” and an “express speed ramp” appear in one release only and are not filed, while “covered car park” appears on two portal surfaces and is not filed either.

It holds a GreenRE BRONZE rating, and that rating is PROVISIONAL, not final. The register entry reads: Residensi Riana Dutamas 3 · BRONZE · PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATION · 30 May 2025 · tool RES v3.3 · developer cell 368 Segambut Sdn Bhd.

Two things make this a solid identification rather than a name match. First, the developer cell matches the KPKT licensee exactly — so the match is on the licensee and not merely on a project name. Second, the tool code is RES (residential) and not a non-residential code, which is correct for a Schedule H Pangsapuri Servis scheme and consistent with the whole thing sitting inside the housing law.

What “provisional” means: a provisional GreenRE rating is awarded on the DESIGN; the final rating follows after completion, and the register’s own expiry column reads as one year after CCC. So the building is not yet rated as built.

And here is the credit line: the developer’s own wording is CORRECT. Its release says “Provisional GreenRE Bronze certification”, and its earlier March 2025 release — written before the 30 May 2025 award — correctly said the rating was not yet obtained and was being pursued. This series has had to correct “certified” into “provisional” on other projects more than once, so getting it right is not nothing.

Platinum was checked as a clean negative (95 rows, closing cleanly, not truncated) — no entry for this licensee or this brand at that tier. Fourteen decoy rows were refused, and two of them matter. Residensi Riana Dutamas 2 holds a Bronze FINAL certification (19 March 2025, tool RES v3.1) issued to the SAME licensee for the ADJOINING phase — the most seductive decoy shape there is, and a FINAL rating on an older tool version must not migrate onto this project’s PROVISIONAL one. And a Chinatown hotel whose developer is Dutamas Waras Sdn Bhd hides “Dutamas” inside a company name. The green-building index register returns a client error and its newer host is robots-disallowed, so GBI is INCONCLUSIVE and was never treated as a negative — and no source claims a GBI rating.

No. Stellaris holds ZERO awards, and the two decoys sit uncomfortably close.

IJM Land publishes its own awards register, and it was read in full to 80 entries. There is no Stellaris entry in it at all.

Decoy one, and it is on the same site: the 2025 StarProperty Family-Friendly Award (Best Family-Centric Development, High-Rise, Kuala Lumpur, Honours) was awarded to Savvy @ Riana Dutamas — the adjoining phase, the same licensee, the same site, the same brand. Decoy two is the brand decoy: the 2017 StarProperty Skyline Award (Excellence) was awarded to Seri Riana Residence in Wangsa Maju, a different IJM Land Riana project. Neither of them belongs to Stellaris and neither appears anywhere else on this page.

Everything else in that register belongs to Rimbayu, Austin Duta, Seremban 2, S2 Heights, The Light, Pantai Sentral Park, Royal Mint Gardens, Bandar Utama Sandakan and others, or is corporate (developer rankings and two chief-executive awards). None of it is borrowed here. No QLASSIC score is published for this project or for any phase of Riana Dutamas.

One more absence worth recording: four IJM Corporation investor documents were searched and neither “Stellaris” nor “Riana Dutamas” appears in any of them. FCW Holdings’ own annual report was NOT reached, and it is the one corporate source for this project that remains unexploited — said plainly rather than implied to have been checked.

Because none exists on any developer surface, and this page will not borrow one.

IJM Land publishes no floor plan on its project page, there is no floor plan in either filed generation, and there is no filed site plan either. The developer’s media endpoint returns fourteen items for this project and not one of them is a plan. There is also no unit interior, no location map and no retail image on any developer surface. The only floor-plan-shaped assets found anywhere are portal-hosted — and a portal-hosted plan is not a developer document, so it is not used here.

What IS filed is the type schedule, and it is on this page in full: ten type codes from 766 to 1,206 sq ft, plus the statutory Keluasan Binaan in square metres per block (Blok A 71–112 m², Blok B 71–109 m²). What is NOT filed: which type sits in which block (inferable from the m² ranges only, and labelled as this page’s inference), the bedroom and bathroom mapping to the codes, and any per-type price.

One honest note on the areas, because it is the sort of thing that makes a page look wrong when it is right: two portals print Type A1 as 764 and Type A2 as 775 against the filed 766 and 776. That is not an error — it is a metric round-trip: 71 m² × 10.7639 = 764.2 and 72 m² × 10.7639 = 775.0. The portals converted the filing’s ROUNDED metric figures back to imperial. The same test holds on every other code, exactly on Type D (93 m² = 1,001.0 against the filed 1,001). Not everything that differs is a mistake, and this page publishes the filed square footage and says why the portals differ.

Ask Louis for the floor plans, the current site plan and the per-type price schedule mapped to the filed codes — they come from the sales gallery, not from the internet.

About 197.8 units per acre — on a figure the DEVELOPER states and no filing confirms. 1,143 units — 5.78 acres = 197.8 units per acre.

Be clear about the status of the denominator: Keluasan Tanah is NOT PRINTED in either filed generation and the register reads keluasan: 0 mps, which means “not filed” and not “zero”. So the acreage is a marketing figure, and this page labels it as one.

But it was corroborated three ways rather than simply refused, and that is worth showing: (1) internal consistency — the developer’s two figures agree with each other: 2.34 hectares = 251,875 sq ft = 5.782 acres. (2) Against the land transaction — the 2013 sale of the site to the joint venture covered four parcels totalling 671,334 sq ft (15.412 acres), a 2019 press report gives the whole development as 6.5 hectares (16.06 acres), and Savio’s parcel is reported at 2.1 hectares. 2.1 + 2.34 = 4.44 of 6.5 hectares, leaving 2.06 hectares for Savvy — a three-way split with no leftover. It reconciles. (3) Plot-ratio sanity check — 1,143 units averaging roughly 900 sq ft net is about 1.03 million sq ft net against 251,875 sq ft of land, a net plot ratio of about 4.1, which is in range for a DBKL transit-corridor site. No gross floor area is published, so that is a sanity check and not a proof.

FIVE denominators were refused, and one of them is instructive: 6.5 ha / 16.06 acres and “16 acres” are the WHOLE township, carrying all three phases’ 3,082 units (they would give a bogus 71 per acre); 2.1 ha is Savio’s parcel; 671,334 sq ft is the 2013 four-parcel purchase, i.e. the whole site again; keluasan: 0 mps on this record is “not filed”; and keluasan: 61 mps on the sibling record 19221-1 is a BUILT-UP in square metres, NOT a land area — reading that one as a site area would understate Savio’s parcel by a factor of about 340. This licence is itself a worked example of that trap.

And note: no source anywhere claims this project is low-density, so there is no claim to refute — which is said deliberately, because inventing a claim in order to knock it down would be its own kind of dishonesty.

Because they are dated a year before the building plan that currently governs this project.

The three facility images — Multipurpose Hall, Jacuzzi and Floating Deck — carry CONFIRMED subjects from the developer’s own content-management-system titles plus captions printed in its project-page HTML, and the developer marks all three Artist’s Impression Only. Their CMS dates are 5–7 March 2025. The building-plan approval that currently governs is DBKL.JKB.BP U1 OSC 2026 0324(6), a 2026 approval that superseded BP U1 OSC 2024 0760. So these renders were produced under the superseded plan.

How much does that matter? Honestly: probably not much, but it is not nothing. The unit counts, the price bands and the built-up ranges did NOT change between the two filed generations, so this is probably not a re-massing of the scheme. But the storey count is disputed 37 against 40, no document explains what the re-approval changed, and a render is a sales tool and not a drawing. So they are captioned as artist’s impressions of the superseded generation and are not presented as depicting the approved scheme.

The five construction photographs are a different kind of evidence and are the more useful ones. Their dates are 1 April 2026, 2 July 2026 and 28 September 2026 — and those are the content-management-system dates, NOT the upload folder, which reads /uploads/2025/12/ for every one of them. Dating them from the folder would put four quarters of site photography in December 2025. They are graded as this project’s photographs from the CMS parent field — site-progress post 9157, titled Riana Dutamas @Stellaris — and NOT from their filenames, because the RD- prefix on that host is the whole township’s initials and the two earlier phases share the same upload tree. Every one of them has empty alt text and an empty caption, so there is no subject beyond the date, and none is invented. Read them against the register’s 20.00% — which is the only construction percentage in existence, because the developer’s own progress post publishes no percentage and no as-at date.

Somewhere between 150 and 210 metres, and NOT ONE of the three published figures says what it measures.

The developer publishes exactly ONE distance figure for this entire project: “150 metres from Segambut KTM”, under “Features” on its own project page. One portal surface repeats 150 m in its highlights; the same publisher’s other domain says 209 m (“3 minutes walk”); and that publisher’s own listing cards say 210 m (“3 mins”) — so ONE publisher carries 150 m, 209 m and 210 m across its two domains, and 150 m and 210 m on the SAME page.

That is a 40% spread, carried by two publishers (the developer and that portal pair), and none of them states whether the figure is straight-line, walking distance, or measured to which station entrance. So the spread is published and no single figure is endorsed.

Two further things to be careful about. First, the covered walkway: a “covered walkway to Segambut KTM Station” appears on every developer and press surface. It is a commitment, it is undated, and it is NOT in the filed facilities list — so ask when it will exist. Second, the MRT: the station identity itself is disputed and NO distance exists from anybody. The developer says only “the nearest MRT”; one portal record names MRT Jinjang; two portal records between them name CC05, CC06, CC07 and CC08 as “nearby MRT”, one of them tagged “Provisional” by the portal itself. Those are MRT Circle Line stations that are NOT BUILT, and this page publishes none of them as existing rail. And the “GoKL shuttle” is a PUBLIC free bus service, not a developer-provided shuttle, whatever one portal calls it.

Everything else nearby is named by somebody with no distance at all: DUKE, DUKE 2, SPRINT, NKVE, PLUS, Jalan Kuching, Mont Kiara, Hartamas, Publika, Solaris Dutamas, Dutamas and KLCC — not one kilometre figure or drive time from any source, and no school, hospital, mall or university anywhere is given a distance by anyone. Nothing was estimated for this page.

Note too that the filed NEWSPAPER advertisement calls this a Pembangunan berorientasikan transit — a transit-oriented-development claim made inside a statutory document, against a nearest rail station whose distance nobody defines. A claim in a statutory document is still a claim.

Ask for these, in writing, and check each against what is on this page.

1. The current filed advertisement particulars for 19221-3 — the P45 generation, so you are reading the one that carries Oktober 2029 and plan approval DBKL.JKB.BP U1 OSC 2026 0324(6). 2. The Schedule H sale and purchase agreement and your own delivery date in it. 3. The per-type built-up AND price schedule mapped to the filed codes A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, B4, C, D, E1 and E2 — and ask what distinguishes B1, B3 and B4, because all three file at 884 sq ft and nothing public explains the difference. 4. Which type sits in Blok A and which in Blok B, and the bedroom and bathroom count per code. 5. The car-park allocation for YOUR unit in writing — the filing says a minimum of one bay and the website says a minimum of two. 6. The floor plans and the current site plan — neither is published anywhere. 7. The approved storey count under the 2026 plan approval, and what changed from the 2024 one. 8. The land area and the lot or PT number — neither is filed and both back routes are closed. 9. For the four Stellar Shoppes units: size, price, title type, contract form and housing-law status — nothing exists on any of them. 10. Which completion date applies to your unit — because the filing says Oktober 2029, the register says 23 October 2029, and the website says Q2 2029.

The sales gallery address, which is the fullest address published anywhere for this project (and is the GALLERY, not the filed project address): Riana Dutamas Gallery by IJM Land & FCW, 368 Jalan Segambut, 51200 Kuala Lumpur. Its telephone number is the same one the KPKT register prints for the licensee, which is a neat cross-check.

Or send Louis the list and he will ask for you. He will not quote you anything he cannot show you the filed document for.