The Serenique numbers that were never true

For two days this site published that Venkatesh Serenique sat on 2.5 acres with 3 towers. It was the only figure anyone had, it was attributed, and it was wrong by a multiple.

The correct figures came from the client, relaying the developer: 14 acres and 11 towers. That is 5.6 times the land and nearly four times the towers.

We are leaving the episode on the record rather than quietly restating the page, because it is the most useful thing this site can tell a buyer about how listing data works.

How a number that wrong gets published

Not by anyone lying. Listing platforms and broker microsites are built to have a filled-in page for every project, because an empty field ranks badly and converts worse.

So the fields get filled, from whatever is available:

• An early plan that was later superseded
• A single registered phase, presented as though it were the whole scheme
• A neighbouring project by the same builder
• Another page on the same site, copied and lightly edited

The second of those is the most likely explanation here. A first-phase registration covering a few towers on part of the land, read as the entire development, produces exactly this kind of error.

What we did with the rest of that source

This is the part that matters more than the correction itself. When a source is wrong about acreage, tower count and configuration mix, the question is not just what to fix. It is what else from that source is still on the page.

Three things were, and each was handled differently.

1. The unit count was deleted, not corrected. That source said 380 homes. 380 across 11 towers of 27 floors is not plausible, and no replacement total has been issued by anyone. A wrong number sitting beside correct ones reads as authoritative in a way that an absent one does not, so the row moved to “Awaited”.
2. The MahaRERA number was kept, and flagged. It is the only one anyone has published, and it is attributed. It also has a prefix that does not match the usual Maharashtra formats, so it needs checking against the portal before anyone relies on it.
3. The December 2031 possession date was kept, and flagged. Same reasoning. It is the only date published, and the binding one is whatever the MahaRERA record for the phase says.

What a buyer should take from this

Not that listing sites are worthless. They are often the only place a pre-launch project appears at all, and this one was right that Serenique exists, that it is in Bavdhan, and that it is by this developer.

What they are not is a substitute for the registered record. Three checks cost you ten minutes:

• Search the registered name on MahaRERA, not the marketing name, and read the promoter, the completion date and the sanctioned layout.
• Ask which phase you are being sold, and whether the figures you were given describe that phase or the whole scheme. This is where the 2.5-acre error most likely came from.
• Treat any figure without a named source as a placeholder, including on this site. Every number here carries an attribution for exactly that reason.

The release ledger exists because of this episode. It shows which numbers are real and which are still being invented elsewhere, and it is the most honest thing a pre-launch page can do.