Total Environment Butterfly of Dreams — Project Overview, Sarjapur Road, Bengaluru
Total Environment Butterfly of Dreams is a 22.25-acre, 1,188-apartment mixed-use development by Total Environment at Thigalachowdenahalli and Dommasandra villages on the Sarjapura–Ambalipura Main Road (SH-35), Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban — six residential towers of 3 Basement + Ground + 36/37 upper floors alongside a 147 m commercial tower, on shared basements carrying 6,056 parking bays, targeted for launch in Q3 2026 and completion on 28 February 2030. Total Environment Down by the Water adds a same-city project reference for buyers reading the overview through product format, buyer profile, and what still needs document-backed confirmation.
No rate card, no public sanctioned plan, no RERA number. Every figure here is the developer's filed project data or is labelled as inferred. Where two sources disagree, both are printed.
Total Environment Butterfly of Dreams at a glance
- 7Towers
- 1,188Residences
- 22.25 acresLand Area
- 3 BHK / 4 BHKConfigurations
- February 2030Possession
- Not registeredRERA
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Project | Total Environment Butterfly of Dreams — listed by third parties as Total Environment Sarjapur Road |
| Developer | Total Environment (Total Environment Building Systems Private Limited) |
| Product type | Apartments — high-rise, mixed use. Not plots, not villas |
| Location | Thigalachowdenahalli + Dommasandra, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban 562125 |
| Coordinates | 12.882958 N, 77.746561 E · Corridor: SH-35 |
| Land extent | 90,059.57 sq m — 22.25 acres. Net site 87,935.90 sq m |
| Units / towers | 1,188 apartments · 6 residential + 1 commercial |
| Landscape | 35,313.68 sq m, ~40% of site · 800 new trees |
| Parking | 6,056 bays across 3 basements |
| Configurations | 3 BHK primary, 4 BHK secondary — predicted, not officially released |
| Approving authority | Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) Local Planning Area |
| RERA | Not registered as of August 2026. No number exists |
| Environmental Clearance | Required from SEIAA Karnataka; not granted, no application traced |
| Launch / completion | Q3 2026 / 28 February 2030 · Status: pre-launch |
What Total Environment Butterfly of Dreams Is — and What Is Being Said Wrongly
This is a high-rise apartment project with a commercial component — 1,188 apartments in six residential towers plus a commercial tower over three basements. It is not a plotted development and it is not a villa community. That distinction matters, because the search results for this project are unusually polluted. Each claim below is contradicted by the developer's own filed data:
| Circulating claim | Filed position |
|---|---|
| 8 residential towers | 6 residential + 1 commercial = 7 |
| G+40 | G+36 (T1–T5), G+37 (T6), G+34 (commercial) |
| 30 acres | 22.25 acres |
| 1,500 units / "1,300+ apartments" | 1,188 apartments |
| 80% open space | ~40% landscape (35,313.68 sq m) |
| Two natural lakes on site | Not in the land or landscape schedule |
| "RERA approved" | No registration exists. Flatly false |
| Plots of 1,800–5,000 sq ft | Wrong product class entirely |
That plot band belongs to a different Total Environment project — the plotted community at Devanahalli, roughly 40 km north — and has been mis-attached here by aggregator copying.
On the name. The name used here is the one the developer holds, consistent with a convention that runs to Down by the Water, In That Quiet Earth and After the Rain. It has not yet been pushed into the public market, so third-party listings call the project Total Environment Sarjapur Road, and a working codename, "Echoes", circulates on at least one channel-partner site. All three are the same 22.25-acre parcel at Dommasandra.
Total Environment Butterfly of Dreams: Land Budget and Technical Specification
| Component | Area (sq m) | Basis / share |
|---|---|---|
| Gross land parcel | 90,059.57 | 22.25 acres |
| Net developable site | 87,935.90 | 97.64% of gross |
| Excluded from development area | 2,123.67 | 2.36% of gross |
| Ground coverage (built footprint) | 29,140.90 | 33.14% of net site |
| Landscape / green area | 35,313.68 | 40.16% of net site |
| Total built-up area | 680,220.99 | 7.74× the net site area |
90,059.57 sq m divided by 4,046.86 sq m per acre gives 22.25 acres, recorded in the revenue schedule as 22 acres 10.18 guntas. The 2,123.67 sq m gap between gross parcel and net site is the usual signature of a road-widening handover or surrendered frontage setback. Ground coverage of 29,140.90 ÷ 87,935.90 = 33.14% leaves two-thirds of the site unbuilt at grade. Landscape of 35,313.68 sq m is 40.16% of the net site and 39.21% of the gross parcel — about 40% either way, half the "80% open space" the aggregators publish.
The last row carries a caution. Built-up of 680,220.99 against 87,935.90 sq m is a ratio of 7.74, but that is not a floor area ratio: total built-up includes three full basements, all parking, plant and service areas, lobbies, amenity floors and the commercial tower. The sanctioned FAR will be considerably smaller and is not public. The same caution defeats dividing built-up by units: 680,220.99 ÷ 1,188 = 572.6 sq m, about 6,163 sq ft per apartment, absurd as a unit size. Strip out a planning-norm car-park allowance — 6,056 bays at roughly 32 sq m each with aisles and ramps, about 193,800 sq m — and the residual of 486,400 sq m is still about 4,400 sq ft per apartment, commercial tower, lobbies and plant rooms included. The check works in one direction only: it confirms the 2,430–3,240 sq ft band is plausible and that built-up cannot be read as a unit-size claim.
Tower schedule
| Tower | Configuration | Height | Apartments |
|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 3B + Ground + 36 upper floors | 112.80 m | 296 |
| T2 | 3B + Ground + 36 upper floors | 112.80 m | 296 |
| T3 | 3B + Ground + 36 upper floors | 112.80 m | 148 |
| T4 | 3B + Ground + 36 upper floors | 112.80 m | 148 |
| T5 | 3B + Ground + 36 upper floors | 112.80 m | 148 |
| T6 | 3B + Ground + 37 upper floors | 115.80 m | 152 |
| Commercial | 4B + Ground + 34 upper floors | 147.00 m | — |
The unit count reconciles exactly: 296 + 296 + 148 + 148 + 148 + 152 = 1,188. Two towers carry 296 each and three carry 148 — precisely half — reading as a paired-wing plan on T1 and T2 against single stacks on T3 to T5.
The heights reconcile too. T1 to T5 stand at 112.80 m over 37 levels above ground: 112.80 ÷ 37 = 3.05 m floor to floor. T6 adds one floor and exactly 3.00 m, and 115.80 ÷ 38 = 3.047 m holds the same module. The commercial tower is the outlier by design — 147.00 ÷ 35 = 4.20 m per level, the deeper floor-to-floor typical of office plates. It stands 34.2 m taller than the tallest residential tower on three fewer floors.
Floor plates and parking. T3 to T5 average four apartments per floor, T1 and T2 eight (two wings of four), T6 exactly four. Four per plate at a predicted 2,400 sq ft-plus is a slim tower, not a wide slab — the form the 53.4 units-per-acre density implies. Beneath them, 6,056 parking bays are 6,056 ÷ 1,188 = 5.10 per apartment against a premium-residential norm of 1.2 to 2.0, so plainly not a residential ratio: it aggregates resident and visitor parking with the demand from a 34-floor commercial tower, which under Karnataka zoning carries a heavier per-square-metre parking obligation than housing. Until the sanctioned plan splits it, no per-apartment entitlement should be inferred.
Regulatory Status: BDA, RERA and Environmental Clearance
At pre-launch the regulatory position is the product, so this section carries the most weight for a buyer.
Planning authority — BDA
The competent planning authority for this parcel is the Bangalore Development Authority. Both revenue villages the land straddles sit inside the BDA Local Planning Area: BDA's Revised Master Plan 2031, Annexure-1 "Schedule of LPA of BDA", lists Dommasandra and Thigalachoudadenahalli as full villages within the BDA LPA, and BDA's Volume-4 planning district PD 26 is titled the "Dommasandra Special Development Zone", naming Thigalachavadadenahalli within it.
Three other readings circulate and each fails. Anekal Planning Authority is superficially plausible because the site is in Anekal Taluk, but the Anekal LPA village table begins one village east — Muthanallur, Yamare, Sompura — and lists neither parcel village. BMRDA is wrong twice over: wrong local planning area, and BMRDA does not sanction building plans in any case. BBMP never applied and no longer exists, dissolved in September 2025; the successor Greater Bengaluru Authority area does not extend here.
One distinction must be held firmly: naming BDA as the competent authority is not a statement that any plan has been sanctioned. No sanctioned plan or commencement certificate for this project is public. Ask to see both at booking.
RERA — not registered, and why that is legally material
There is no Karnataka RERA registration for Total Environment Butterfly of Dreams as of August 2026. This is a verified negative, not an assumption. The K-RERA project registry was parsed in full — 9,876 rows — and every Total Environment record extracted: 25 registrations across the group's promoter entities, spanning Bengaluru North, South, East and Yelahanka. None is in Anekal Taluk. All 892 Anekal-taluk rows were then enumerated separately to close the possibility of a filing under an unfamiliar special-purpose entity. Nothing. The agent registry was checked too: the group holds no agent registration either.
No number should ever be quoted for this project. Karnataka registrations take the form PRM/KA/RERA/1251/<taluk>/PR/<ddmmyy>/<serial>, where 1251/308 is the Anekal segment. That pattern is public, which makes a fabricated number easy to manufacture and hard to spot. At least one portal already publishes an agent registration number against the Total Environment name as though it were a project RERA; it belongs to an individual agent and has nothing to do with this project. Any RERA number shown for Butterfly of Dreams is wrong. Verify at rera.karnataka.gov.in before paying anything.
Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 applies squarely. Section 3(1) bars a promoter from advertising, marketing, booking, selling or offering for sale — or inviting persons to purchase — any apartment in a project without first registering it with the Authority. The exemption at section 3(2)(a) covers land of 500 sq m or less, or eight apartments or fewer; this project exceeds the land threshold by 90,059.57 ÷ 500 = 180 times and the unit threshold by 1,188 ÷ 8 = 148 times. There is no argument about applicability.
Until registration is granted, section 13(1) bars a promoter from taking more than 10% of the cost of an apartment as advance without a registered agreement for sale; section 4(2)(l)(D), requiring 70% of amounts collected to sit in a separate project account, only begins to bite on registration; and section 59 exposes a promoter contravening section 3 to a penalty of up to 10% of estimated project cost, with continued contravention attracting imprisonment up to three years and/or a further 10%. None of that makes a pre-launch enquiry improper. It does mean money changing hands before registration sits outside the Act's protective machinery, escrow and enforceable completion date included. Registration is what converts "28 February 2030" from a stated target into a date with a remedy attached.
Environmental Clearance — required, not granted
At 680,220.99 sq m of built-up area the project falls under item 8(b) of the EIA Notification 2006 schedule — townships and area development projects — because it crosses the 150,000 sq m built-up threshold. In Karnataka practice an 8(b) project is appraised as Category B1, requiring full EIA and EMP reports rather than the lighter Form-1-only route, and is cleared by SEAC and SEIAA Karnataka.
No Environmental Clearance has been granted, and no application has been traced on the public PARIVESH portal. A full pull of that dataset — 152,491 proposals nationally, current through mid-August 2026 — returned five Total Environment proposals, all for other projects, none for a Sarjapur, Dommasandra or mixed-use scheme. That is a real schedule constraint: a comparable Bengaluru 8(b)/B1 project took roughly eleven months from Terms of Reference to EC letter, and construction cannot lawfully begin before the EC issues. A Q3 2026 launch with nothing yet on the portal implies clearance work running in parallel with the sales launch — normal here, but a reason to treat 28 February 2030 as a target rather than a commitment.
Sustainability and Services: The Engineering File
These provisions come from the developer's project data. They are not approved figures — no EC exists against which to verify them — and are published as filed.
| System | Provision |
|---|---|
| Sewage treatment | 2,020 KLD, SBR (sequencing batch reactor) |
| Water demand | 2,202 KLD |
| Wastewater generated | 1,982 KLD |
| Rainwater / raw water sump | 1,020 cu m |
| Groundwater recharge | 22 recharge pits |
| Solid waste | 7.63 MT per day |
| Landscape / trees | 35,313.68 sq m · 800 new trees |
| Watercourse | Tertiary nala across site, 15 m buffer, ~220 m realignment |
The water balance is tight but coherent. Wastewater generated (1,982 KLD) is 90.0% of total demand (2,202 KLD), the return ratio of a scheme with substantial dual-plumbing reuse. The STP at 2,020 KLD sits only 38 KLD above generation — a 1.92% margin, thin enough that the plant will almost certainly be built as several modules rather than one train, so maintenance on one does not put the campus into bypass. The 1,020 cu m sump is 1,020 KL: against 2,202 KLD, 1,020 ÷ 2,202 = 0.46 days, about 11 hours of full-campus storage.
The solid-waste figure discloses the design population. 7.63 MT per day is 7,630 kg — 6.42 kg per home per day across 1,188 apartments, far above any residential norm, because the number is not residential alone. At the standard planning assumption of roughly 0.5 kg per person per day it implies a design population near 15,300 people, residential towers plus the commercial tower's daytime occupancy. That is the arithmetic signature of a genuinely mixed-use masterplan, not a residential scheme with a retail strip attached.
Trees, recharge and the nala. 800 new trees across 35,313.68 sq m of landscape is one per 44.1 sq m of planted area, about 36 per acre of site; the 22 recharge pits are one per 3,997 sq m of net site, very close to one per acre. A tertiary storm-water nala crosses the site with a 15 m buffer and about 220 m of realignment. Measured 15 m each side over that length the encumbered corridor is roughly 220 × 30 = 6,600 sq m, about 7.5% of the net site — unbuildable land that, handled well, becomes the spine of the landscape. Buffers of this kind are standard conditions in Karnataka environmental clearances, so it will be tested again at EC stage.
Developer: Total Environment and the Design-Build Model
Total Environment was founded in 1996 by architects Kamal Sagar, a 1992 B.Arch graduate of IIT Kharagpur, and Shibanee Sagar; the two are partners in the in-house practice Shibanee + Kamal Architects. The flagship company, Total Environment Building Systems Private Limited, carries CIN U45202KA1996PTC020790 and an MCA incorporation date of 10 July 1996 — the year encoded in the CIN itself, and the year the company publishes in its own profile. A 1997 founding date circulates on listing sites and is not supported by the statutory register.
What distinguishes the developer commercially is that it is genuinely vertically integrated, unusual in Indian residential development. Architecture, interiors, landscape and engineering are in-house through Shibanee + Kamal Architects; furniture and fenestrations are manufactured at the group's own Machine-Craft plants, and homes are handed over furnished with them. Customisation runs through a proprietary platform, eDesign, which lets buyers vary layout, finishes and cabinetry at unusual granularity. The signatures that follow — a garden with every home regardless of floor, terrace gardens, exposed brick, natural stone and rich wood — are consistent across the portfolio. A project overview is strongest when it helps buyers filter, and Suraksha Whispering Waves adds that same-city context around who the homes suit, what needs verification, and where the trade-offs sit.
Scale, with the sources separated. The developer's own current material states 6 million sq ft delivered to more than 1,600 customers. An independent ratings review dated March 2025 records approximately 64 projects and 5.5 million sq ft delivered, with 12.69 million sq ft under development and a booking rate near 79%. The two are close, differ by measurement date and scope, and are printed as what each is. A March 2025 institutional announcement separately records a ₹1,300 crore platform commitment for Bengaluru residential development, adding roughly 6.5 million sq ft at a combined gross development value of ₹10,100 crore — the fourth investment in the developer by that partner.
The counterweight, stated plainly. The customisation the brand is bought for and the delivery timeline it produces are one fact seen from two sides, and the delay record is documented across two forums. In March 2022 the Karnataka High Court held, on the developer's After The Rain Phase-I, that buyers retain allottee rights under RERA even after a sale deed is registered, and ordered delay compensation at 10.75% from January 2018 to occupancy certificate on a ₹5.77 crore investment. In March 2026, on the same project, K-RERA ordered execution of the sale deed and roughly ₹70 lakh in delay interest on a consideration of ₹3.31 crore, for possession missed from May 2023. The registry corroborates structurally: several masterplans have been re-registered in four, five and six successive phase tranches over eight years or more. A ratings review names the cause without editorialising — longer gestation, inherent to a premium, heavily customised segment. Two favourable facts belong beside that: there are no insolvency proceedings against the developer, and its Karnataka portfolio is registered phase by phase on the public registry — which is precisely how the delay record became checkable at all.
Total Environment Butterfly of Dreams: Project Timeline
| Milestone | Position | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Land assembled at Thigalachowdenahalli + Dommasandra | 22.25 acres, two revenue villages, two gram panchayats | Recorded in the land schedule |
| Planning authority | BDA Local Planning Area, RMP 2031 Annexure-1; district PD 26 | Authority identified; no sanctioned plan public |
| Environmental Clearance, SEIAA Karnataka, 8(b) Category B1 | Required at 680,220.99 sq m built-up | Not granted; no application traced, Aug 2026 |
| K-RERA registration | Mandatory under s.3 before marketing or sale | Not registered as of August 2026 |
| Launch | Q3 2026 | Developer's stated target |
| Completion | 28 February 2030 | Stated target; enforceable only once registered |
| Metro Phase 3A — Muthanallur Cross and Dommasandra stations | State cabinet sanction; Union Cabinet clearance pending | Revised programme targets operations April 2033 |
The last row deserves emphasis, because the opposite claim is widespread. Phase 3A of Namma Metro will run through this corridor with sanctioned stations at Muthanallur Cross and Dommasandra, a genuine long-term structural change to the micro-market. But the revised programme, carried across national and regional press in mid-2026, puts operations at April 2033 — roughly three years after the project's stated completion. Any page telling you possession and the metro land together is working from a superseded date. The nearest operational metro today is Bommasandra on the Yellow Line, 12.4 km by road.
Where the project stands in August 2026: land assembled, building programme specified in unusual detail, planning jurisdiction settled — and the two approvals that convert all of that into something a buyer can rely on, the environmental clearance and the RERA registration, not yet obtained. That is a normal position for a genuine pre-launch, and the reason to check both in the registries themselves before any money moves.
Contact the Total Environment Butterfly of Dreams desk
Ask for the brochure, the cost sheet when it is issued, floor plates and a site visit for Total Environment Butterfly of Dreams.
Total Environment Butterfly of Dreams overview — questions
What is Total Environment Butterfly of Dreams?
It is a pre-launch, mixed-use high-rise apartment development by Total Environment on a 90,059.57 sq m parcel — 22.25 acres — fronting the Sarjapura–Ambalipura Main Road (SH-35) at Dommasandra. The filing describes six residential towers carrying 1,188 apartments, one commercial tower, three basements, 6,056 parking bays, 35,313.68 sq m of landscape and 800 new trees. It is not plots and not villas, though several listings describe a plotted or villa scheme here. Launch is stated as Q3 2026 and completion as 28 February 2030, so this describes a filing rather than a product on sale today.
Which authority approves the plans, and is this under BBMP or the Greater Bengaluru Authority?
Plan sanction sits with the Bangalore Development Authority. BDA's Revised Master Plan 2031, Annexure-1, lists both parcel villages as Full Village inside the BDA Local Planning Area — Dommasandra at row 36, Thigalachoudadenahalli at row 54 — and BDA Volume-4 carries planning district PD 26, the "Dommasandra Special Development Zone". BMRDA is wrong twice over: wrong planning area, and it does not sanction plans. BBMP was dissolved on 2 September 2025 and replaced by the Greater Bengaluru Authority and five city corporations, and this site falls outside all five — civic services run through gram panchayat and Anekal Taluk administration. Naming BDA as competent authority is not a statement that any plan has been sanctioned.
Has the project received environmental clearance?
No. At 680,220.99 sq m of built-up area the project falls under EIA Schedule item 8(b), triggered above 1,50,000 sq m built-up, which Karnataka appraises as Category B1 — full EIA and EMP reports, with SEIAA Karnataka as the issuing authority. A pull of the entire public PARIVESH dataset on 15 August 2026, 152,491 proposals nationally, found no application of any kind for this project, not even a Terms of Reference filing. A comparable Bengaluru 8(b) project took roughly eleven months from ToR to clearance — worth holding against a Q3 2026 launch, since construction cannot lawfully begin first.
Is Butterfly of Dreams the same project as Total Environment Sarjapur Road?
Yes — one parcel, two names. "Butterfly of Dreams" is the name the client has confirmed directly with the developer, while third-party listings market the same land as Total Environment Sarjapur Road, some using the working codename "Echoes". The poetic name carries no public footprint yet: absent from the developer's projects page and from a 9,876-row parse of the Karnataka RERA registry. We carry both — the project's own name, and the geographic name the market uses.
How much of the site is open space, and how much parking is there?
Landscape is 35,313.68 sq m against the 87,935.90 sq m net site = 40.16%, and ground coverage 29,140.90 sq m = 33.14% — more of this site is planted than built on, and the eighty-percent open-space figure on aggregator pages is double the filed number. Parking runs to 6,056 bays across three basements, 5.10 per apartment gross; no residential scheme reaches that alone, so the commercial tower absorbs most of it and you should assume one to two bays per home. A tertiary nala crosses the parcel with a 15 m buffer and about 220 m of proposed realignment — a real constraint, disclosed rather than hidden.
What does section 3 of the RERA Act 2016 mean for a buyer here?
Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 prohibits a promoter from advertising, marketing, booking, selling or offering for sale any apartment in a project above the prescribed threshold until that project is registered with the state authority. In plain terms, until a Karnataka RERA number exists, marketing and sale here are unlawful, and money paid sits outside the statutory protections — no registered possession date, no escrow discipline over 70% of collections, no regulator holding a file. That is buyer-protective information, not a technicality: a cheque now does not buy what a registered project's cheque buys.