Asian Fab Kengeri Floor Plans

This is the page where a pre-launch microsite is most likely to invent something. A buyer arrives wanting a plate: two bedrooms, this many square feet, this layout, this tower. On most project pages on the internet, that plate is supplied. For this scheme it cannot be supplied honestly, because it has not been disclosed. So this page does the opposite of what the format invites. It sets out precisely what the filed documents establish about the built programme, states plainly what they do not establish, reproduces the client brief's tentative area bands with the brief's own warning attached, and explains what a buyer should insist on seeing before any money changes hands.

There are no floor plate drawings on this page. There is no tower schedule. Neither exists in any document we were able to obtain, and drawing one from imagination would be worse than an empty section.

Both signed certificates were read in full and searched for the words that would carry a residential programme: tower, unit, dwelling, flat, storey, BHK. There were zero hits. The only quantity either certificate carries is the product line itself, recorded as "Residential Apartment with Club House and Amenities — 287,985.28 SQMT".

The document that would settle the question is the conceptual plan lodged as an enclosure with the application. On PARIVESH that enclosure is authentication-gated and could not be retrieved. The Environmental Clearance Form-1 record, which might carry a fuller project description, returns an HTTP 500 error consistently.

So the position is this. Nothing on file states how many apartments the scheme will contain. Nothing on file states how many buildings it will contain, or how many floors those buildings will have. Nothing on file assigns any configuration to any block. This page does not assign configurations to buildings either, because no filing does.

The client brief circulating around this project does give a unit count. It also gives a building count in one section and a different, smaller building count in its own USP block, contradicting itself. Because neither building figure is corroborated by any filing, and because the brief disagrees with itself, we publish no building count at all, and we do not present either of the brief's figures as the more likely one. The unit count, which at least appears consistently, is set out in the next section and attributed to the brief, never asserted as fact.

Set the three bands side by side and two boundary problems appear on the brief's own arithmetic.

The 3 BHK band ends at 1,350 sq ft. The 4 BHK band begins at 1,350 sq ft. As written, a 1,350 sq ft apartment falls inside both bands, which means the brief's largest three-bedroom apartment and its smallest four-bedroom apartment are the same size. That may simply be loose drafting of a range. It may also mean the four-bedroom product at the bottom of its band is a compact plan. Either way, the table as supplied does not distinguish the two configurations at their shared boundary, and a buyer should not read a size difference into it.

At the other boundary there is a gap rather than an overlap. The 2 BHK band stops at 950 sq ft and the 3 BHK band starts at 1,000 sq ft, leaving 50 sq ft with no configuration assigned to it. Again, that is what happens when round numbers are written into an early sheet. It is not evidence of anything about the building.

The band widths themselves are worth noting as arithmetic: 200 sq ft for the 2 BHK, and 350 sq ft each for the 3 BHK and the 4 BHK. A 350 sq ft spread inside a single configuration label is wide, and it is wide because nothing has been fixed to a dimension yet.

There is an earlier Terms of Reference for the same 6.2624 ha parcel, granted 09/03/2026 under file SEIAA 78 CON 2026 and proposal SIA/KA/INFRA2/569887/2026. It records a built-up area of 273,029.69 sq m and a project cost of Rs 562.67 crore. Its certificate's survey-number field is blank.

Both filings are real and both are on the record. The March one is superseded; the operative figures are the July ones. The difference between them, by our own subtraction, is 14,955.59 sq m of additional built-up area, roughly 161,000 sq ft, alongside a project cost that fell by Rs 36.40 crore. Both of those are simple differences between two verified filed numbers, labelled here as our arithmetic. We draw no conclusion from them about the design, the unit count or the pricing. A promoter's cost estimate and its built-up figure can move between filings for many reasons, and the reasons are not in the documents.

The reason this belongs on the floor plans page at all is that it shows how early the scheme is. The overall envelope moved by nearly 15,000 sq m between two filings four months apart. A programme still moving at that scale has not had its unit schedule fixed.

A carpet-area schedule is not something a developer estimates. It falls out of the sanctioned building plan, unit by unit, once the plan is approved by the sanctioning authority and lodged with the regulator at registration.

Neither step has happened here. The sanctioning authority for the site has not been recorded in any document we could obtain. Doddabele sits at the edge of the Greater Bengaluru Authority boundary, and the 2025 reorganisation of BBMP into the GBA has left jurisdiction in this belt unsettled. A buyer should verify the sanctioned plan and the sanctioning body directly with the developer.

Until there is a sanctioned plan, there are no dimensioned units. Until there is a registration, there is no filed unit schedule. That is why this page has an area table sourced from a marketing brief and nothing sourced from a drawing.

There is an obvious calculation sitting on this page that we have deliberately not performed. The Mysore Road micro-market averaged Rs 8,040 per sq ft in the second quarter of 2026, on ANAROCK's numbers. Multiplying that by the brief's area bands would produce a tidy indicative price range for each configuration, and most sites would print it.

It would be a fabrication built out of two unsuitable inputs. The area bands are unconfirmed, self-labelled tentative and of unstated measurement basis. The micro-market average is a real figure for the corridor as a whole, not a rate for this project, which has published no rate at all and whose developer has set no price. Multiplying an unconfirmed area by a borrowed rate produces a number that looks authoritative and is worth nothing. Where a comparable is genuinely useful, it belongs on the pricing page, framed as somebody else's project at somebody else's rate.

We will update this page when a primary document gives us something to publish: a K-RERA registration with a filed unit schedule, a sanctioned plan, or a specification published by Asian Fab Tec Limited itself. At that point the brief's tentative bands come off the page and a verified configuration table replaces them.

Until then the position is the one set out at the top. The parcel, the built-up area, the cost and the granted Terms of Reference are all on the record. How that area is divided into homes is not. We would rather say so than fill the gap.