Asian Fab Kengeri Overview

That gap is the honest starting point for this page. A great deal of material about this project is circulating — unit counts, building counts, apartment sizes, launch dates — and almost none of it can be traced to a document anyone can check. This page separates the two. Everything below is labelled by where it comes from: a signed government certificate, our own arithmetic on those figures, or the client brief and marketing material we were given. Where the honest answer is that nobody outside the developer's office knows yet, that is what you will read.

Three filings exist on the PARIVESH portal, all by Asian Fab Tec Limited, all on the same 6.2624-hectare parcel. Two of them are Terms of Reference proposals — one now superseded by the other — and the third is an Environmental Clearance application that has not been decided. Together they are the entire verifiable record of this project.

The operative filing: Standard Terms of Reference granted 8 July 2026

This is the operative record. Where a figure on this site differs from something you have read elsewhere, this filing is why.

The superseded March 2026 Terms of Reference

An earlier proposal, SIA/KA/INFRA2/569887/2026, was granted Standard Terms of Reference on 9 March 2026 under state file SEIAA 78 CON 2026, ToR identification number TO26B3813KA5930830N. It covers the same 6.2624-hectare parcel, but with a built-up area of 273,029.69 sq m and a project cost of Rs 562.67 crore. The survey-number field on that certificate is blank.

Both filings are real and both are on the record. This is a superseded filing rather than a contradiction: the July 2026 grant is the current one, and its figures are the ones this site publishes. Comparing the two is straightforward arithmetic on filed numbers, and we set it out as our own subtraction rather than as anything the certificates say: the built-up area in the later filing is 14,955.59 sq m larger (287,985.28 less 273,029.69), and the stated project cost is Rs 36.40 crore lower (Rs 562.67 crore less Rs 526.27 crore). We record the change because it is checkable. We draw no conclusion from it.

The environmental clearance application, filed and undecided

A third proposal, SIA/KA/INFRA2/573357/2026, is an Environmental Clearance Form-1 filed on 21 April 2026. Its status reads "Referred to SEIAA". It has not been decided.

What a granted Terms of Reference does not mean

A Terms of Reference is permission to conduct an environmental impact study. It tells the promoter what that study must examine. It is not an approval to build, it is not an environmental clearance, and it is not a sanctioned plan. The certificate itself carries the point in its own words: a grant of Terms of Reference "does not tantamount to approvals/consent/permissions".

The accurate line, and the one used throughout this site, is this: Standard Terms of Reference were granted on 8 July 2026, and the environmental clearance application remains under consideration. Anyone who tells you this project is environmentally cleared, or that its clearance has been received, is describing a document that does not exist.

The sanctioning authority for the Doddabele site is not on record

The material we were given names only a "Local Planning Authority", which is not a body. It does not name one, and we could not find a document that does.

Doddabele is a revenue village under H. Gollahalli Gram Panchayat, outside the former BBMP municipal area. A boundary test, however, places the parcel within roughly 63 metres of the Greater Bengaluru Authority boundary, with its filed extent apparently straddling it. BBMP was dissolved on 2 September 2025 and replaced by the Greater Bengaluru Authority, and the Bangalore Development Authority's planning jurisdiction is reportedly being reduced in the same reorganisation. The position in this belt is genuinely unsettled.

So: the sanctioning authority for the site has not been recorded in any document we could obtain. A buyer should verify the sanctioned plan and the sanctioning body directly with the developer. If anyone tells you a named civic or development authority has already sanctioned the plan, ask which authority and ask to see the sanction — no such document is on any record available to us.

Asian Fab Tec Limited is the promoter named on both signed certificates and on the PARIVESH application form. Its registered office is Plot No. 15, II Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru 560058 — an address that is identical on the SEAC certificate, on the portal record and on the company's own website, which is the kind of three-way match that makes an identity safe to publish.

The company was incorporated on 14 August 2000 as Asian Cylinders Limited, to manufacture LPG cylinders of various sizes and to undertake power projects, construction and fabrication. It was renamed Asian Fab Tec Ltd with effect from 10 February 2006. Its founder, on its own About page, is Mr K. H. Puttaswamy Gowda. The legal name carries the "Limited" suffix without "Private", which indicates a public limited company rather than a private one; that is our reading of the name, not a filing we hold.

The material fact for anyone considering this project is what the company does. Its own website titles itself an electrical contractor. It describes four divisions — power projects, construction, fabrication and solar photovoltaic — and none of them is property development. Its own project list carries exactly one entry, Sira Solar Projects. We found no residential track record of any kind: no K-RERA registration across the entire registry of 9,907 rows, no housing project on its own site, and no credible press. Three independent negatives point the same way.

That does not make Asian Fab Tec a paper company — it is a working engineering business with a checkable record going back to 2000. It does mean that this appears to be its first residential development, and that a buyer has no delivered homes to judge it on: no handover record, no build quality to inspect, no completed common areas, no resident owners to ask. For a pre-launch commitment that is a material consideration, and it is one you should weigh with your own advisers. The full picture is set out on our page about Asian Fab Tec Limited.

The verified rows below come from the signed certificate for the operative filing. The two conversions are ours, and the working is shown so you can check them.

Both certificates were read in full and searched for any programme figure — towers, units, dwellings, flats, storeys, bedroom counts. There are no hits. The only quantity either document carries is the product line itself: "Residential Apartment with Club House and Amenities — 287,985.28 SQMT". The document that would settle the programme is the conceptual plan filed as an enclosure, and it is authentication-gated on the portal; the Form-1 record returns a server error consistently. We could not retrieve either.

The fair summary of the project as it stands: a filed, approved-to-study scheme of known land area, known built-up area and known cost, whose unit mix has not been disclosed.

The environmental process on this project is live, and it is the reason the project is on the public record at all. A Category B1 project under Schedule 8(b) must have its impacts studied before a clearance can be considered. The Terms of Reference granted on 8 July 2026 define what that study must cover; the Environmental Clearance application filed on 21 April 2026 sits with SEIAA, undecided.

What that means in practice is that the project's environmental commitments are being written now, not published now. No sustainability specification for this scheme has been made public — no water strategy, no energy provision, no waste plan, no tree survey, no landscape figure that any filing supports. When the impact assessment is submitted and appraised, that is when this becomes checkable, and we will publish it against the documents rather than against a brochure.

One piece of the surrounding utility picture is already on the ground and is worth knowing about, in both directions: BWSSB operates a 40 MLD sewage treatment plant at Doddabele, and a 100 MLD expansion is proposed on the same premises. Proximity to trunk sewerage is genuinely useful for a large residential scheme. Proximity to a treatment plant is also a locality trade-off that a buyer should visit and judge for themselves, at more than one time of day. Our location page covers it in full.

This is the most useful section on the page. These are not gaps we expect to close by looking harder; they are things that do not yet exist in any public document.

How many apartments there will be. Not in either certificate. Not in any retrievable filing. The brief's figure is a brief's figure.

How many buildings, and how tall. No filing states a building count, a floor count or a height. The brief's own material disagrees with itself on the building count.

The unit mix and the real sizes. The configurations in circulation are tentative by the brief's own admission, and no carpet area exists for any of them.

The price. There is none. Not from the developer, not in the client workbook, not anywhere. No base rate, no payment schedule, no floor-rise, no preferential-location charge. Any number you are quoted for this project today has no published source behind it, and the same applies to any "pre-launch discount" framed against it. When a buyer is still forming the shortlist, Aparna Wonder Woods keeps the Bengaluru lens focused on practical fit: address, product scale, configuration, timing, and paperwork clarity.

Who sanctions the plan. Not recorded in any document we could obtain, and complicated by an unsettled jurisdictional boundary that the parcel appears to straddle.

Whether an environmental clearance will be granted, and on what conditions. The application is undecided. Conditions imposed at clearance can change a scheme's programme materially.

When K-RERA registration will be applied for, let alone granted. No application exists today. Until one is granted, the project cannot lawfully be sold.

How this developer builds homes. It has not built any that we could find. The engineering record is real and checkable; the residential record does not exist yet.

The exact parcel boundary. We publish a bounding-box centre because the boundary polygon itself is authentication-gated. The survey numbers are the precise identifier, and they are on the certificate.

None of this makes the project doubtful. A scheme of this size with a granted Terms of Reference, a conversion on file, filed survey numbers and a stated cost is a real scheme moving through a real process. It simply has not reached the stage where the things buyers most want to know have been decided and published. When they are, they will appear here, sourced. Until then, treat any confident specific you are quoted — a unit count, a price, a handover date — as unsourced, and ask the person quoting it which document it came from.