A developer’s own website is the best source you have and it is still an incomplete one. While researching Sattva City we found the official project page giving two different airport distances, and no pricing at all. Neither is unusual. Here is how to read a builder’s site properly, and what to go elsewhere for.
Key takeaways
- The official site wins on project name, acreage, configuration and RERA number.
- It often omits pricing entirely, because prices change faster than websites.
- Tower counts, unit counts and possession dates are frequently missing.
- Official pages can contradict themselves between sections. We found exactly that here.
- Everything else you read is a channel partner page, and those repeat each other uncritically.
The example: Sattva City — RERA number and acreage confirmed on the official page; tower count, unit count, sizes, pricing and possession date all found only in secondary sources. Our listing page marks which is which.
What the official site is genuinely authoritative on
Five things, and on all of them you should treat the developer’s own page as final.
The project name. Aggregators frequently use a locality name instead, which is how one project ends up with three identities and three sets of figures.
Acreage. Where the official page and secondary listings disagree, the official page is the one with a legal exposure attached to it.
Configuration. If the developer lists 2, 3 and 4 BHK and a listing site adds 1 BHK and penthouses, the extra entries may be speculation or a later phase.
The RERA number. When it is published on the official page, that is a strong signal, and it is the string you take to the portal.
Amenity claims like clubhouse count and open-space percentage, which are the developer’s own statements and can be held to.
What it routinely leaves out, and why
The omissions are consistent enough across developers that they are clearly policy rather than oversight.
| Usually missing | Likely reason |
|---|---|
| Prices | They move between phases; a stale price is a liability |
| Possession date | The binding date is in the RERA filing, not the website |
| Tower and unit counts | Phasing changes; the sanctioned plan is the record |
| Carpet areas | Unit-specific and disclosed at agreement stage |
| Payment schedule | Negotiated and phase-dependent |
None of this is evasive. Each of these belongs in a document with legal weight rather than on a marketing page, which is exactly where you should be reading it.
The practical consequence is that a website alone cannot answer the questions that decide a purchase. It tells you what the project is. It does not tell you what you are buying.
When the official page contradicts itself
This happens more than you would expect, because different sections of a site are written at different times by different people.
On the Sattva City page we found the airport described as ten minutes away in one place and five minutes in another. Both were on the same official page on the same day.
The right response is not to pick the flattering one, and not to dismiss the source. It is to note the contradiction and go and measure the thing yourself.
That principle generalises. Where any source disagrees with itself, the disagreement is the finding. Treat it as a prompt to verify rather than a reason to choose.
There is a second, subtler version of this worth watching for. Official pages are often not dated, so a figure may be accurate for a phase launched two years ago and wrong for the one being sold now.
If a page carries no date, treat its numbers as needing confirmation even where they are internally consistent. Ask when the page was last updated, or ask for the same figure from the sales team in writing.
The channel partner problem
Search almost any Bengaluru project and the first two pages of results are channel partner microsites. They are not the developer, though many are designed to look like it.
They are often useful, because they carry the pricing and unit detail the official site omits. They are also unreliable in a specific way: they copy one another, so a single early error propagates across dozens of pages and then looks like consensus.
That is exactly how a 53-acre figure circulates widely for a project the developer’s own page calls 50 acres. Repetition is not corroboration.
Our own approach, for what it is worth: use them for leads, never for facts, and never link to them. If a figure exists only on channel partner pages, we publish it as reported rather than confirmed, and we say which it is.
A five-source order of precedence
When two sources disagree, this is the order we work in, and it resolves almost every conflict without guessing.
- The RERA filing and sanctioned plan — legal weight, unit-specific, dated.
- The developer’s own project page — authoritative on name, land, configuration.
- The developer’s brochure — useful, but marketing and often undated.
- Established news and industry reporting — good for launches and land deals.
- Channel partner microsites — leads only, and treat agreement between them as one source.
Where one and two disagree, go with one. Where two and five disagree, go with two. Where only five has the number, say so on the page rather than presenting it as fact.
It is a dull discipline and it is the entire difference between a research page and a rewritten brochure.
One habit makes all of it easier: write down where each figure came from as you collect it. Not for publication necessarily, just so that when two numbers clash a week later you know which source each belongs to.
Almost nobody does this, which is why the same wrong acreage ends up in a buyer’s spreadsheet and then in a negotiation.
And when you genuinely cannot resolve a conflict, the right move is to say so rather than choose. An unresolved figure clearly marked as unresolved is more useful to a buyer than a confident average of two numbers, because it tells them what to go and ask.
That is the standard we hold ourselves to on every listing we publish, and it is why our pages sometimes carry two prices instead of one.
Common questions
Is a builder’s official website reliable for project information?
It is authoritative on project name, acreage, configuration, amenity claims and the RERA number. It routinely omits pricing, possession dates, tower and unit counts and carpet areas, because those belong in documents with legal weight rather than on a marketing page.
Why do builder websites not show prices?
Prices move between phases and a stale published price creates a liability, so most developers keep pricing to the sales channel. It means you cannot verify a price from the official site and must get the current figure in writing.
What should I do when two sources give different figures?
Work in order of precedence: the RERA filing and sanctioned plan first, then the developer’s own page, then the brochure, then established reporting, then channel partner sites. Where only a channel partner has the figure, treat it as reported rather than confirmed.
Are channel partner websites trustworthy?
They often carry pricing and unit detail the official site omits, which makes them useful. They also copy one another, so a single early error spreads across many pages and looks like consensus. Repetition between them is not corroboration.
What if the official page contradicts itself?
Note the contradiction rather than picking the more flattering version, then verify the fact independently. We found exactly this on a project page giving two different airport distances in different sections on the same day.
Want a project fact-checked?
Send us any project and we will tell you which figures come from the developer, which from the RERA filing, and which exist only on channel partner pages. It is what we do before writing any listing, and there is no charge for it.
Related reading
The example used here reflects what the pages in question said on the date we read them; websites change. Verify any registration yourself on the Karnataka RERA portal before paying a booking amount.
