Embassy Sadahalli Overview

What does not exist is equally important. There is no registration with the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority. There is no announced marketing name. There is no published price, no published amenity schedule, no published floor plan and no published handover date. This page separates the three things carefully: what a filing states, what marketing material claims without a 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.

The regulatory record behind Embassy Sadahalli

There are two filings on the national environmental portal, PARIVESH. They carry the same promoter and the same parcel, and the second is an enlargement of the first. Both are real records; the later one is current.

The current filing: an environmental clearance application under examination

The filed cost carries its own internal cross-check: the figure is spelled out on the application as "Rupees Five Hundred and Sixty Four Crores only", which removes the usual ambiguity about whether a number has been transcribed with a digit misplaced.

The parcel is assembled from twenty survey numbers, most of them part-holdings, marked "(P)":

124(P), 129(P), 131(P), 132(P), 134(P), 136(P), 137(P), 138(P), 139(P), 140(P), 141(P), 142(P), 143(P), 144, 145(P), 146, 147, 148, 149(P), 150(P).

What "Under Examination" means, and what it does not. It means the application has been accepted onto the portal and is with the appraisal machinery. It does not mean the project has been assessed, and it certainly does not mean it has been approved. No environmental clearance has been granted for this project. Anyone who tells a buyer otherwise is reading the record wrongly.

The earlier filing: Standard Terms of Reference granted 4 May 2026

What a Terms of Reference grant means, and what it does not. Terms of Reference are the scope of study. The State Expert Appraisal Committee tells the promoter what its environmental impact assessment must examine — water, traffic, waste, air, ecology — before the committee will consider clearing the project at all. A granted ToR is therefore the point at which the study begins. It is a procedural milestone, not a permission. It does not authorise construction, it does not sanction a building plan, and it is not an environmental clearance. This distinction matters because it is the single most frequently mis-stated fact about pre-launch North Bengaluru projects.

What changed between the two filings

The survey list also differs. The signed ToR certificate prints a sixteen-number list: it omits 129, 131, 132 and 134, and it prints 150 without the partial marker. The twenty-number list above comes from the current application's own record.

We are deliberately not drawing a line between those two observations. No document states an area per survey number, and survey 150 appears as a full holding on one record and a part holding on the other, which would work in the opposite direction. The honest statement is the plain one: the later filing lists four survey numbers the certificate does not, and the filed land area rises from 6.45 to 6.80 hectares. Any account that explains the one by the other is inventing a link the record does not contain.

The proportions are worth noting on their own. The land grew by about 5.4 per cent between filings while the declared built-up area grew by about 0.28 per cent — arithmetic on the two filed pairs above. In plain terms, the building programme is essentially the same programme; it is the parcel that moved.

Embassy Group, the promoter of record

The promoter named on both filings is Embassy Developments Limited, the listed entity through which Embassy Group's residential business is now run. That listing is a genuine advantage for a buyer doing diligence on a project this early: a listed developer publishes an annual report, quarterly investor updates and earnings-call transcripts, all of which can be checked against what a sales channel says. Very little of a pre-launch scheme is verifiable, but the entity behind it is. Concorde Sienna keeps the wider Bengaluru search practical by tying the project story back to buyer fit, configuration needs, and the confidence required before a site visit.

Embassy has a substantial and long-established presence on this stretch of the North Bengaluru airport corridor. Its Embassy Springs township sits roughly one to 2.4 kilometres away on the same corridor, and Embassy markets that township with an address on MSEC Road, Navarathna Agrahara — our parcel's own revenue village. That shared address line is precisely why aggregators confuse the two. They are not the same thing. This is a separate parcel with its own survey numbers, its own PARIVESH proposal and its own promoter filing; nothing about Springs — no phase name, no registration number, no amenity, no delivery record — carries over to it.

The company's disclosed pipeline is also, at present, silent about this site. Its FY27 launch pipeline runs to nine projects and its FY28-onwards table to twelve, and neither names anything at this parcel. For a fuller account of the group, its structure and its record, see our page on the developer.

The verified specification of Embassy Sadahalli

Everything in this table comes from the filings.

The building-by-building programme is set out on both filings, and it is unusually specific for a project at this stage:

The eight-tower figure is verified, which is worth pausing on. Tower counts are ordinarily the first thing a channel invents and the last thing a filing states. Here the filing states it, and the two building groups add up to it.

The floor notation reads as three basement levels, a ground floor and between fourteen and twenty upper floors, so the tallest towers rise to twenty levels above ground. The filings do not say which towers sit at the bottom of that range and which at the top. The clubhouse and the villaments are a different envelope entirely — two basements, ground and three upper floors — which makes the clubhouse a substantial standalone building rather than a podium amenity block, and makes the villaments genuinely low-rise.

Our arithmetic on the filed figures

These three are our own derivations from the filed numbers, shown with their working, and they are estimates rather than filed values.

• Built-up area in square feet. 262,029.83 sq m × 10.7639 = about 2,820,000 sq ft, or roughly 2.82 million sq ft of gross built-up area. Note that this is the filed built-up figure, which includes basements, services and common areas.
• Density. 1,352 homes ÷ 16.80 acres = about 80 homes per acre. That is a high-density urban programme, not a low-rise one, and the twenty-storey upper bound is consistent with it.
• Gross built-up per home. 262,029.83 sq m ÷ 1,352 homes = about 193.8 sq m, or roughly 2,086 sq ft per home. This is emphatically not a unit size. It is total declared built-up area divided by unit count, and it includes three basement levels of parking, the clubhouse, circulation and services. Actual saleable areas will be materially smaller and are not published.

One correction that matters: 1,352 is homes, not apartments

Marketing material counts all 1,352 units as apartments. That is wrong. 1,304 of the units are apartments in eight towers, and the remaining 48 are villaments in two low-rise buildings. 1,304 plus 48 is 1,352. The correct forms are "1,304 apartments and 48 villaments" or simply "1,352 homes". The filings do not define what the developer means by "villament" beyond that 2B + G + 3UF envelope, and they do not say which unit types map to those 48 homes.

Sustainability and the environmental process at Navaratna Agrahara

A project of this size cannot be built until the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority grants an environmental clearance, and that decision comes only after the impact study the Terms of Reference prescribed has been carried out and appraised. This project is inside that appraisal and has not come out of it. Nothing is cleared.

On land use, the record is better than the marketing had it. Embassy's own Form-1 states that the site has been "converted from agricultural to non-agricultural i.e residential use", as per the Comprehensive Development Plan of BIAAPA — the Bengaluru International Airport Area Planning Authority, which is the plan-sanctioning body for this part of the airport corridor. Note the spelling; it is frequently rendered wrongly. BIAAPA and the environmental authorities are two separate tracks with two separate consents, and clearing one says nothing about the other. What the Form-1 establishes is that the land-use conversion has been done. It does not tell us that a building plan has been sanctioned, and we have no sanction number.

Beyond that, there is no published sustainability position: no green-building rating, no water or energy commitments, no stated treatment or recycling capacity. Those figures are exactly what an impact study produces, so they should become knowable as the environmental process runs. They are not knowable today.

What is not yet known about Embassy Sadahalli

This is the most useful section on the page, and we have not softened it. These are genuine open questions, not rhetorical ones.

1. The marketing name. None announced, and nothing at this parcel appears in the company's disclosed FY27 or FY28-onwards pipelines.
2. Whether registration will be sought, and when. There is no K-RERA registration and no pending application. Until one is granted, the project cannot lawfully be advertised, booked or sold.
3. Whether the environmental clearance will be granted, and on what conditions. The application is under examination. Clearances routinely arrive with binding conditions on water, traffic and construction, and those conditions can reshape a scheme.
4. The configuration mix. No filing breaks 1,304 flats down by unit type, and none says how many of each there will be.
5. What the 48 villaments actually are. No type is assigned to them by any record.
6. Carpet areas, and the areas the brief's ranges refer to. A range quoted without a stated area basis cannot be compared with anything.
7. Price. No price exists, for any configuration. Availability is pre-order and the correct answer to a price question today is "on request".
8. The amenity schedule. Nothing published beyond the clubhouse building's existence and height envelope.
9. The tower-by-tower breakdown. We know eight towers in two groups of 838 and 466 flats, and a 14-to-20 upper-floor range. We do not know which tower is which height, or how the flats distribute across the eight.
10. Whether the parcel has moved again since 3 August 2026. It grew once already, from 6.45 to 6.80 hectares. It may grow again.
11. Building plan sanction. Land-use conversion under the BIAAPA plan is recorded in the promoter's own Form-1. A sanctioned plan number is not.
12. Water source, sewage treatment and traffic mitigation. These emerge from the impact study, and none is published yet.
13. The exact site boundary. Our published coordinate is the centre of the filed boundary box, derived by us. It orients a buyer; it does not survey a plot.

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