Registry Forensic · Checked on UP-RERA 20 July 2026
Same name, same developer, same sector — one is delivered, one isn't built yet. I pulled both ACE Parkway RERA records.
By Vidit Kaushik, Vidastu Advisory · UP-RERA Agent UPRERAAGT000309/01/2026 · Published 20 July 2026 · Checked on up-rera.in 20 July 2026
Quick answer
No, they're not the same project — and only one of them has a RERA number. UPRERAPRJ4514 is the delivered, ready-to-move original ACE Parkway, registered 9 August 2017 with a RERA-declared completion date of 31 December 2021. ACE Parkway 2.0 — the pre-launch project the rest of this site covers — has no RERA registration yet; I searched the registry for it directly and found none. Same developer (ACE Group / ACE Infracity Developers), same sector (150, Noida), two separate legal filings, two different stages of life.
What I actually did for this page
- I opened UP-RERA's own registration record for UPRERAPRJ4514 directly — up-rera.in/Frm_View_Project_Details.aspx?id=4514 — and read the registration date, promoter and land reference myself, 20 July 2026.
- Where the live form's proposed-start and declared-completion date fields didn't render cleanly on my own check, I cross-verified both dates against two independent sources that read the same registry filing — ACE Group's own site and an independent listings portal — and both state the identical two dates. I'm citing those two as RERA-stated and corroborated, not as something I personally watched load on screen, and I've said so again where they appear below.
- I separately searched the registry for "ACE Parkway 2.0" and for the developer's name to confirm no second, 2.0-specific registration exists yet.
- I compared the registry's own scale figures against ACE Group's marketing copy and found they don't fully agree — flagged below, not resolved.
What I did not do: visit either site, inspect any unit, or speak to an ACE Group sales representative for this page. Nothing here is a personal site inspection — it's a registry-and-source check, tagged honestly at each step.
The registry record for UPRERAPRJ4514 — what came up when I opened it myself
UP-RERA's own project record, as it read when I checked it directly on 20 July 2026:
| Field | As registered on UP-RERA |
|---|---|
| Registered project name | Ace Parkway |
| Registration number | UPRERAPRJ4514 |
| Registration date | 09-08-2017 |
| Promoter | ACE Infracity Developers Private Limited (Promoter ID UPRERAPRM6202) |
| District / Tehsil | Gautam Buddha Nagar / Dadri |
| Land reference | Khasra SC-01/B-8, Sports City Plot SC-01/B, Sector 1 — 45,603 sq.mt. (~11.27 acres) |
| Proposed start date* | 01-07-2017 |
| Declared date of completion* | 31-12-2021 |
| "ACE Parkway 2.0" registration found? | No — searched separately, none exists as of this check |
Every row I read directly myself at the URL above, 20 July 2026 — except the two marked *. Those two dates didn't render on the live form during my own check, so I'm citing them as they're identically stated by two independent sources that separately read the same registry filing (ACE Group's own site and an independent listings portal), not as something I personally watched load. Re-check the live record yourself before relying on any of this for a purchase decision — registry data can change.
The forensic finding: an 18-month gap on the public record
UP-RERA's own filing for UPRERAPRJ4514 declares 31 December 2021 as the completion date. The reported ready-to-move date — sourced from an independent listings portal, not from UP-RERA itself — is June 2023. That's roughly an 18-month gap between what the registry declared and what actually got handed over, on the record. Slipping past a first RERA-declared date isn't unusual for large NCR projects from that era, and this one did still get delivered and occupied — but anyone telling you the original ACE Parkway closed out exactly on its registered schedule isn't reading the same record I did.
Separately: the registry's own scale figures don't fully agree with ACE Group's marketing copy either. I found three different tower/unit counts across the registry's project summary, the registry's own unit-by-unit tower listing, and the developer's public site. None of the three resolves the other — it's flagged here, not settled.
The two projects, side by side
| Factor | Original ACE Parkway | ACE Parkway 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Stage | Delivered, ready-to-move | Pre-launch, EOI stage |
| RERA registration | UPRERAPRJ4514 (registered 9 Aug 2017) | None yet — applied for, not granted |
| Registered / declared completion | 31 Dec 2021 (RERA-declared) | Not applicable — no filing exists yet |
| Reported handover | Ready-to-move since June 2023 (reported) | Not applicable |
| Location | Sector 150, Noida (Khasra SC-01/B-8) | Sector 150, Noida (same sector) |
| Developer | ACE Infracity Developers Pvt Ltd | ACE Infracity Developers Pvt Ltd (same entity) |
| Indicative price | Resale ~₹14,450/sq.ft (Q1 2026, reported) | Pre-launch ~₹16,995/sq.ft → ~₹21,995/sq.ft at launch (indicative) |
| Entry mechanism | Resale sale deed, standard conveyancing | ₹10 lakh EOI, fully refundable, not a booking |
| Escrow account | Applicable — RERA-registered project | Outside escrow — no registration exists yet to create one |
| Design legacy | Gauri Khan Designs show-home interiors (developer-stated) | Same design heritage claimed by ACE Group; not confirmed for 2.0's own show flats specifically |
Resale price is reported third-party portal data, indicative only, not a RERA-registered figure. Pre-launch price for ACE Parkway 2.0 is developer-stated and indicative; the legally binding price is fixed only in the Agreement for Sale once a registration exists.
What the registry can't tell you about 2.0 — because it doesn't exist yet
Because ACE Parkway 2.0 is pre-RERA, several things a registration normally fixes simply have no answer yet:
- No registered possession date. A completion date, like the original's 31 December 2021, only exists once a project is filed. ACE Parkway 2.0 has none.
- No escrow account. RERA registration requires 70% of buyer collections to go into a designated project bank account. Without registration, ACE Parkway 2.0's EOI money sits outside that structure — worth knowing plainly before you send it.
- No confirmed, binding price. The ~₹16,995/sq.ft figure is developer-stated and indicative; the enforceable number is fixed only in the Agreement for Sale, once registration exists.
- No RERA delay-compensation clock. The statutory delay-penalty mechanism only starts running from a registered completion date. ACE Parkway 2.0 doesn't have one to start the clock from.
My honest take
If I'm being direct about it: the ~18-month gap on the original's own record doesn't worry me much on its own — most large NCR projects from that era slipped past their first RERA-declared date, and this one still got built, delivered and occupied, which is more than some 2017-vintage projects nearby can say. What I'd actually weigh is different. ACE Parkway 2.0 is being sold on the strength of that same developer's execution record, and the evidence for that record is genuinely there — a completed, occupied project with a public RERA history you can go read yourself, not just a brochure claim. That's a real point in ACE Group's favour. It doesn't substitute for 2.0 getting its own registration, its own escrow account and its own binding price — and until it does, I'd treat every number quoted for 2.0 exactly as what it is: indicative, not filed.
Frequently asked
Is ACE Parkway 2.0 the same project as the original ACE Parkway?
No. The original ACE Parkway is a delivered, ready-to-move project registered under UP-RERA UPRERAPRJ4514 on 9 August 2017. ACE Parkway 2.0 is a separate, newer pre-launch project by the same developer in the same sector — it does not share, inherit, or borrow the original's RERA registration. I checked the registry myself: UPRERAPRJ4514 belongs only to the original; searching for "ACE Parkway 2.0" on UP-RERA returns no result.
What is the original ACE Parkway's actual RERA number, and can it be cited for ACE Parkway 2.0?
UPRERAPRJ4514 — and no, it cannot. That number is registered specifically to the delivered original project (promoter ACE Infracity Developers Private Limited, registered 9 August 2017). If any source cites UPRERAPRJ4514 as proof that ACE Parkway 2.0 is RERA-registered, that source is wrong; I verified this directly on the UP-RERA portal.
Did the original ACE Parkway deliver on its RERA-declared completion date?
Not quite. UP-RERA's own record declares a completion date of 31 December 2021. The project is reported ready-to-move since June 2023 — an approximately 18-month gap between the registered date and the reported handover. That reported date comes from a portal listing, not from UP-RERA itself, so I've tagged it accordingly, but the RERA-declared date is on the public record.
Does ACE Parkway 2.0 have its own RERA registration yet?
No, not as of this check. I searched UP-RERA's project portal directly for "ACE Parkway 2.0" and separately for the developer, ACE Infracity Developers — no second, 2.0-specific registration exists yet. Until one is issued, ACE Parkway 2.0 stays at the Expression of Interest (EOI) stage: refundable, not a booking, and outside the project escrow account that RERA registration would create.
Why do the tower and unit counts for the original ACE Parkway conflict across different sources?
Because they're pulling from different parts of the record. UP-RERA's own filing lists a different unit and tower breakdown than ACE Group's marketing copy states publicly, and I found a third figure again inside the registry's own unit-by-unit tower listing when I opened it directly. None of the three fully agree. I'm flagging that conflict here rather than picking whichever number sounds most authoritative — it's a real inconsistency in the public record, not something I've resolved.
How do I check the RERA record myself instead of trusting a website?
Go to up-rera.in/projects directly and search "Ace Parkway" or the number UPRERAPRJ4514 — that pulls up the original, delivered project's record. Then search "ACE Parkway 2.0" separately and confirm nothing comes up yet. The whole check takes about three minutes and needs no login. Full steps are in the how-to section above.
Is the Gauri Khan Designs association the same for both projects?
It's a shared design heritage, not a confirmed claim about ACE Parkway 2.0's own interiors specifically. Gauri Khan Designs styled the show-home interiors at the original ACE Parkway and at ACE Golfshire — that's developer-stated precedent. ACE Group carries the same design association into its later projects, but I haven't seen a developer confirmation naming Gauri Khan Designs for ACE Parkway 2.0's specific show flats, so I'm not stating that as a fact here.
Is the ₹10 lakh EOI for ACE Parkway 2.0 the same as booking a unit at the original ACE Parkway?
No, and the difference matters. At the delivered original, you can inspect a finished flat, register a sale deed and take possession under normal resale conveyancing. At ACE Parkway 2.0, the ₹10 lakh Expression of Interest is fully refundable, creates no right in any unit, and currently sits outside any RERA-mandated escrow account, because no registration exists yet to create one. Treat the two as different legal instruments entirely.
How to verify this yourself in under 3 minutes
Don't take this page's word for any of it — the registry is public. Four checks against a source we don't control:
Want the ACE Parkway 2.0 floor plans, indicative price sheet and an honest answer on where it actually stands?
Request a private preview 📞 Call — +91 98114 05300 💬 WhatsApp — send me the EOI details