Urbanrise Gattahalli Overview

What does not exist matters just as much. There is no registration with the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority. There is no environmental clearance — the application has been filed, not decided. There is no announced marketing name, no published price, no published floor plan, no published amenity schedule and no published handover date. This page keeps three things apart throughout: what a filing states, what marketing material claims with no filing behind it, and what nobody has answered yet. Where we have done our own arithmetic on filed figures, we say so and show the working.

One proposal exists. These are its particulars as filed.

What "Under Verification" means, and what it does not. It means the application has been lodged on the portal and its particulars are being checked. It comes before appraisal and a long way before any decision. No state file number has been issued against it. No Terms of Reference have been granted. No certificate exists. No environmental clearance has been granted for this project. Those are four separate documents, and none of them is in the record. Anyone describing this project as approved, cleared or sanctioned is reading the record wrongly, and you should treat the rest of what they tell you with the same caution.

The correct statement of the position, and the one we hold to across this site, is this: the environmental application was filed on 7 July 2026 and is under verification; no environmental clearance has been granted, and the project is not registered with K-RERA.

The promoter of record on the filing is Alliance Grandeur Homes Private Limited. That name does not carry a brand on its face, so the link to Urbanrise is worth setting out rather than asserting, because it is the basis on which we treat this as an Urbanrise project.

Two independent corroborations sit inside the government record itself. First, the Common Application Form gives the applicant's address as No. 243, 19th Main Road, Sector 4, HSR Layout, Bengaluru – 560 102. That is not merely the same pincode as the group's Bengaluru office — it is character-for-character the Bengaluru corporate address Alliance Group publishes on its own website, and the same address already recorded in our fleet's developer file for Urbanrise. Second, the site-boundary file the promoter uploaded to the portal is named "alliance urbanrise project site final.kml". A promoter naming its own boundary file after the brand it intends to build under is about as direct as documentary evidence of this kind gets. Taken together, the two are sufficient. We write this as an Urbanrise project, with Alliance Grandeur Homes Private Limited named as the promoter of record wherever compliance language requires it.

Two things should not be folded into this project, and both are easy to fold in by mistake. URBANRISE CONDOMINIUMS PRIVATE LIMITED has its own separate environmental filings in Karnataka, on a different parcel entirely: Sy. Nos. 180, 181/2, 181/3 and 182 at Hagaduru Village, K R Puram, Bangalore East — a different taluk, and a different scheme of 394 units on 5.62 acres. Nothing in that record applies here. Separately, our own fleet already carries a site for Urbanrise at Begur Koppa Road. Same developer, different parcel, different project — read it as portfolio context if you read it at all, never as this scheme under another name.

One further caution about the brand. Urbanrise's current live-projects page organises its portfolio under product lines it labels EI Neo, EI Nova and EI Nirvana. We cannot place Gattahalli in any of them, because no source does, and older product-ladder names that appear in secondary material have not been verified against the developer's current published structure. So we publish no product line for this project. For the fuller account of the group, its scale and its record, see our page on the developer.

Every figure in this table is taken from the promoter's own filing.

Two things follow from those figures by arithmetic, and we label both as our own estimates.

Density: about 87.6 homes per acre. 368 units ÷ 4.20 acres = 87.6. That is dense — not unusual for a mid-rise-to-high-rise apartment scheme on a small parcel, but a number worth knowing before you look at renderings. On 4.20 acres, 368 homes across an 18-upper-floor envelope means built form takes precedence over open ground, and the open space that exists will be shared hard.

Gross built-up per home: about 216 sq m. 79,634.39 sq m ÷ 368 units = 216.4 sq m, which converts at 10.7639 sq ft per sq m to roughly 2,330 sq ft. This is not a flat size and cannot be read as one. Built-up area on an environmental filing covers everything constructed — two basement levels, parking decks, the club house, corridors, lobbies, staircases, shafts, walls and services — so the figure sits far above any saleable or carpet area and must not be compared with the configuration ranges quoted below. What it does tell you is that the filed envelope is substantial relative to the plot, which is consistent with two full basement levels and a multi-level amenity building.

That amenity building is the one genuinely notable verified feature of the scheme. The filing records a club house at 2 basements + ground + 2 upper floors — a dedicated multi-level structure with its own basements, on a 4.20-acre site. Set beside the density figure, the two facts belong together: this is a tight parcel, and the promoter has nonetheless committed a substantial standalone building to amenities. Both are true, and a buyer should weigh both.

It is worth being clear about what the environmental process is for, because it is the mechanism by which most of the sustainability claims a buyer hears would become binding — or would not.

The application is filed under activity 8(a), Building and Construction, in Category B2, before the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority. If the process runs to a decision, the outcome is a clearance carrying conditions: on water sourcing and consumption, on sewage treatment and reuse, on rainwater harvesting and groundwater recharge, on construction-phase dust, debris and traffic, on energy provision and on landscaping. Those conditions are enforceable against the promoter. They are the difference between a sustainability feature that is a marketing line and one that a regulator can be asked about.

None of those conditions exists yet, because the application has not been decided. That is the whole of the position. A buyer today cannot check what sewage treatment capacity will be required, what proportion of parking must carry electric-vehicle provision, how much recharge the site must deliver or what energy measures will be mandated — not because the information is hidden, but because the document that would fix it has not been written. Any specific sustainability number quoted to you now is a proposal or a marketing figure, not a commitment, and the honest thing to do with it is to write it down and check it against the clearance when one is granted.

This is the most useful section on the page, and it has not been softened. These are genuine open questions.

1. The marketing name. None has been announced, and the developer's own Bengaluru list does not carry a Gattahalli project at all.
2. Whether the environmental clearance will be granted, when, and on what conditions. The application is still being verified. Clearances routinely arrive with binding conditions that reshape a scheme's water, traffic and construction plans.
3. Whether K-RERA registration will be sought, and when. There is none today and nothing pending. Until one is granted, the project cannot lawfully be advertised, booked or sold.
4. The tower count, and how 368 homes distribute across the built form. The filing gives a floor envelope and a unit total, and nothing between them.
5. The unit mix. No record states how many 2 BHK homes and how many 3 BHK homes there will be, or whether other configurations exist.
6. Carpet areas, and the area basis of the brief's ranges. A size range with no stated basis cannot be compared with any other project's.
7. Price. None exists for any configuration. Availability is pre-order, and the only correct answer to a price question today is "on request".
8. The amenity schedule. Nothing is published beyond the club house building's existence and its 2 basements + ground + 2 upper floors envelope.
9. Parking provision, and how much of it carries electric-vehicle capability. The brief counts both. No filing we can read confirms either.
10. Building plan sanction. No sanctioned plan number appears in the record, and the sanctioning authority for this parcel is not BBMP.
11. The khata classification on Sy. No. 50. Expect panchayat khata on a BMRDA-region parcel, but verify it against the survey number rather than against a locality.
12. The access road. The brief describes a 9 m main road serving the site. Neither the width nor any widening commitment is confirmed, and 368 homes is a lot of traffic for a road of that order.
13. Water source and sewage treatment. Both emerge from the environmental appraisal. Neither is settled.
14. The exact site boundary. Our published coordinate is the centre of the box enclosing the promoter's filed boundary, derived by us. It orients a buyer; it does not survey a plot.
15. Whether the parcel or the programme changes before a decision. Filings are amended. This one may be.
16. Which Urbanrise product line, if any, this scheme sits in. The developer's current lines are EI Neo, EI Nova and EI Nirvana. No source places Gattahalli in any of them.

We will revise this page as the record changes — when the clearance application is decided, when a registration appears, and when the developer names and publishes the project. Until then, what is written above is the whole of what can responsibly be said about Urbanrise Gattahalli.