Telangana has told the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that the Future City project has not entered the development or construction stage and that no environmental clearance violations have occurred in the notified area around Hyderabad. The state’s Future City Development Authority (FCDA) has sought dismissal of a petition alleging that the proposed project was being advanced without mandatory environmental approvals.
In a counter-affidavit filed before the Chennai bench of the NGT, FCDA commissioner K Shashanka said the allegations were “baseless, misconceived, unsupported by facts and wholly untrue”. The affidavit stated that the authority had neither approved nor undertaken any township, infrastructure project or other development activity of the kind described in the petition filed by environmentalist Donthi Narasimha Reddy.
The FCDA was established as a special area development authority under the Telangana Urban Areas (Development) Act through Government Order No. 69 in March 2025. Its jurisdiction covers 56 revenue villages spread across 765.28 sq km. The authority said its role is that of a planning and development body and not a real estate project proponent.
According to the counter-affidavit, the FCDA has not granted any layout, township, building or development approvals within the notified area. It also said that it had not received or considered any proposal requiring prior environmental clearance. The statement separates the authority’s planning responsibilities from the execution of specific projects that could trigger environmental approval requirements.
The authority also disputed information cited by the petitioner from a website described as being linked to the FCDA. The affidavit said the website was neither owned nor maintained by the authority. FCDA has initiated action to file a criminal complaint against those responsible for creating or operating what it called an unauthorised website.
A tender cited in the petition was also addressed in the state’s response. The FCDA said the tender was issued through the government’s e-procurement platform only to appoint a consultant for preparing a vision and comprehensive master plan for the Future City Area. It said the tender was not connected to infrastructure execution or the commencement of construction activity.
The authority further clarified that its office building at Meerkhanpet, sanctioned at an estimated cost of ₹19 crore, is an administrative facility and is unrelated to any township project. It also said references to Hyderabad Pharma City, land conversion, village resettlement, industrial activity and environmental clearances concern other agencies and projects.
The affidavit places the immediate dispute before the NGT on the distinction between planning a large urban region and implementing development works within it. The state’s position is that the creation of a planning authority, preparation of a master plan and construction of an administrative office do not, by themselves, establish that a township or infrastructure project has commenced.
The NGT proceedings will determine how the tribunal addresses the petition and the explanations submitted by the FCDA. Until then, the authority’s counter-affidavit maintains that no Future City development project requiring prior environmental clearance has been approved or started in the notified area.
