The Telugu Desam Party-led coalition government, headed by Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, has once again reversed an important decision following public backlash and criticism from opposition parties.
The controversy surrounds the Andhra Pradesh government's decision to allot land to several software companies at nominal rates.
On April 10, the State Investment Promotion Board (SIPB), chaired by Naidu, approved the allotment of 21.16 acres to software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) at a nominal price of just 99 paise per acre to establish a facility at IT Hills in Visakhapatnam.
Five days later, the state cabinet ratified the decision. State IT Minister Nara Lokesh publicly confirmed that the land was being given to TCS through outright sale at 99 paise per acre, as the company would invest ₹1,370 crore in the project and generate 12,000 jobs.
However, on Wednesday, the Special Government Pleader (SGP) informed the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the land had been allotted to TCS on a lease basis, not as an outright sale.
The High Court bench observed that the Government Order (GO) issued regarding the allotment made no mention of it being a lease. The court directed the state government to submit a detailed counter affidavit.
The court was hearing a petition challenging the government’s decision to allot the land to TCS at such a nominal rate.
While the court acknowledged that offering incentives to attract large corporations is common, it emphasized that the allotment must follow due procedure.
“To attract a company like TCS, the government may allot land at a nominal price,” the bench noted. “Andhra Pradesh is still in an early stage of development. The focus shouldn't be solely on the land value, but on the potential long-term benefits such investment could bring—similar to how Hyderabad and Bengaluru grew due to the IT sector.”
The petitioner objected to what was perceived as the outright sale of valuable public land to TCS for just 99 paise. In response, the government clarified that it was only a lease, not a sale.
The bench concluded that the land allotment will remain subject to the court’s final verdict and stated that no interim orders would be issued at this stage.
