CtrlS lists a campus of up to 750 MW on 36 acres in Bharat Future City, scalable to 1.2 GW, with no statement of whether that is IT load or gross plant and no commissioning schedule. Reporting in September 2026 put the CtrlS commitment in Future City at 2 GW — 2.7 times the operator’s own page. Both cannot be right, and the larger one implies 55.6 MW an acre, which is not a data centre density at all. This registry uses the operator figure and records the press figure as a conflict.
1At a glance
2750 megawatts or 2 gigawatts
This is the widest claim-versus-claim gap in the Telangana file, and it was published within weeks of itself.
| Figure | Source | Implied density | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| 750 MW | CtrlS Hyderabad page | 20.8 MW an acre | the figure this registry uses |
| 1.2 GW | CtrlS Hyderabad page | 33.3 MW an acre | labelled scalability, not capacity |
| 2 GW | September 2026 press reporting | 55.6 MW an acre | not usable as a capacity figure |
Fifty-five megawatts an acre is the number that settles it. Even a stacked multi-storey hall with rear-door heat exchangers does not fit 55 MW of connected load into every acre of a 36-acre plot; that would require the entire site to be plant, with no roads, no substation yard and no water. Either the 2 GW covers a much larger land area than 36 acres, or it is a national or state figure reported against one project.
That kind of misattribution is common in Indian project reporting and it does real damage: 2 GW is the number that will end up in a slide deck, because it is the biggest one. This record exists mainly to keep 750 MW next to it.
Take 750 MW as the operator’s ceiling, take 36 acres as the site, and treat everything above 750 as unreconciled press arithmetic.
The useful question is not which number is right. It is why a campus with no construction date is being described at gigawatt scale at all — which is usually a demand signal, not a supply fact.
3The gap in one chart
Telangana is the clearest gap in this registry between what is claimed and what is counted, and CtrlS supplies most of the claim on its own.
| Set | Megawatts | Buildings | Backed by |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chandanvelly plus Future City | 1,450 | 0 | two operator page claims |
| All counted Telangana capacity | 341.3 | many operators | facility-level records with sources |
| CtrlS Hyderabad buildings 1 to 3 | 26.4 | 3 | operator cards with racks and floor area |
The ratio that matters: 1,450 MW of park claims against 26.4 MW of CtrlS buildings — 55 to one. Even against the whole state’s counted capacity, the two parks are claimed at more than four times everything operating in Telangana.
That is not a scandal. Parks are announced before they are built, and every operator in this file does it. It is, however, the reason a market number built from press releases will be wrong by multiples, and the reason this registry counts buildings rather than claims.
4Who else is in Future City
Bharat Future City is a master-planned city, not a data centre estate, and CtrlS is not the only operator reported inside it.
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Is the land allocated? | Reported as a 36-acre allocation inside a planned city. Land allocation is not a power sanction |
| Is there power? | Not published for this site. The Chandanvelly park has a 700 MVA sanction; this one does not have a published equivalent |
| Are other operators there? | Yes — hyperscale investment in the same planned city is reported, including AWS. Those are separate records and separate land |
| Does a neighbour help? | It helps with fibre and with state attention. It does not supply megawatts |
| Is a city master plan a schedule? | No. Master plans run for decades; capacity claims are made against the end state of them |
The structural risk in a planned city is that the operator’s capacity figure is timed against the city’s completion, not the operator’s own capital plan. A 750 MW campus in a city that fills in over twenty years is a 750 MW campus in twenty years. Nothing on the page commits anyone to sooner.
5Procurement
6Limits and open questions
- Basis unstated. Up to 750 MW with no indication of IT, gross or planning ceiling. This is the single largest weakness in the record.
- No schedule. No start date, no phase, no completion.
- No power sanction published, unlike the Chandanvelly park.
- The 2 GW press figure is unreconciled and would imply a land intensity that does not exist. It is recorded as a conflict only.
- Planned city dependency. Utilities and access depend on a development that has its own timeline.
- What would close it. A sanctioned load in MW, or a first-building date.
7Sources
Sources: CtrlS Hyderabad data centre page, ETDatacenters on Bharat Future City investment, CtrlS 2025 park announcement, Data Center Dynamics on the Hyderabad corridor, Telangana state industrial material, and Indian market commentary on Hyderabad data centre land.