The Future City Development Authority (FCDA) has told the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that allegations of environmental violations against the state’s ambitious Future City project are factually incorrect. In a comprehensive counter affidavit filed before the tribunal, the authority rejected every major claim in the petition, saying none of them match the facts on record.

The petition was filed by social activist Donthi Narasimha Reddy. He alleges that the government is carrying out work under the name ‘Fourth City’ without environmental clearances. FCDA is a respondent in the case, and its affidavit is the authority’s first formal answer to those claims before the tribunal.

The authority traced its legal footing to the Telangana Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. Under Section 3-A of that law, the state government constituted FCDA through G.O. 69 on March 12, 2025, as a special area development authority. The affidavit says the body was set up as a legal entity, not an informal planning exercise.

According to the official notification cited in the filing, FCDA’s jurisdiction covers 765.28 square kilometres across 56 revenue villages. That is a large footprint, and it is the reason the petition has drawn so much attention. A territory of that size is exactly where questions about clearances, land use and construction tend to multiply.

Here is where the affidavit gets specific. FCDA said it has not granted any layout approval, township development permission, building construction permission or any other development permission for the allegations raised in the petition. In plain terms, the authority is saying that the paperwork the petitioner points to does not exist on its books.

The authority went further than denying approvals. It said no projects that require environmental permissions have come before it. It also said no proposals of that kind are under consideration. That is the central defence in the filing, and it puts the burden of proof squarely on the allegations.

Projects that require environmental clearances have not come before the authority, and no proposals of that nature are under consideration.

The tender that has drawn scrutiny is the next piece of the puzzle. FCDA said the tender was issued only to select an experienced consultant to prepare a comprehensive vision document and master plan for Future City. It was not, the authority stressed, a tender for infrastructure, township development or construction work.

That distinction matters more than it might seem. A master plan is a blueprint that sets out how land could be used over time. It is not a shovel in the ground. The authority is drawing a clear line between planning a city on paper and building one on the land, and it is asking the tribunal to judge the case on that line.

The affidavit also addressed a separate name that has been linked to the broader debate. FCDA stated that it has no connection with the pharma city project. That denial closes off one possible source of confusion, though the filing does not explain how the two names got tangled in the first place.

Why the clearance question is the real fight

Environmental clearance rules exist to force a hard look at large projects before they break ground. They are designed to catch the impact on land, water and surrounding ecosystems at the planning stage, not after the damage is done. The authority’s position rests on one argument: since no such project has reached it, the clearance requirement has not been triggered in its jurisdiction.

That argument will now be tested. The petition says work is going on without clearances. The affidavit says the work described is planning work, and that no permissions requiring environmental clearance have been sought or granted. Those two versions cannot both be the whole picture, and the tribunal will have to decide which account the evidence supports.

What this means for Telangana

For Telangana, this case sits squarely inside the state’s own development agenda. The government is driving Future City through a dedicated authority created under a state law, which makes the outcome a test of how the state handles large-scale planning when environmental questions are raised. Residents across the state will be watching how the tribunal weighs the difference between a master plan and actual construction.

The case also raises a broader governance question. When a state creates a special development authority covering hundreds of square kilometres, the public expects clear answers about what has been approved, what is only being planned and what needs clearance before it moves forward. The FCDA affidavit tries to draw those lines in writing, and that is exactly why the document matters.

The petition remains before the tribunal, and the affidavit is now part of the record. Neither side’s version has been tested in a final ruling. For now, the authority has put its denial on paper, and the activist’s claims are the ones that must be proven.

What makes this story hit hard is the gap between two claims about the same land. One side says a city is quietly taking shape without the safeguards the law demands. The other says it has issued a tender for a plan, nothing more. The tribunal is now the only body positioned to close that gap, and the answer will shape how the Future City project is seen for years.