Vizag: A resolution to recommend the regularisation of 54.79 acres of government land in Visakhapatnam for the private GITAM institution has triggered a political confrontation between the ruling Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and the opposition YSR Congress Party (YSRCP).The controversy centres on the decision taken by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) council on January 30, 2026, to forward a proposal to the state government for the alienation of land in the prime localities of Rushikonda and Endada. The beneficiary, the Gandhi Institute of Technology and Management (GITAM), is a private deemed-to-be-university owned by the family of the sitting TDP MP from Visakhapatnam, M. Sri Bharat. Bharat is the son-in-law of actor-politician Nandamuri Balakrishna, who is chief minister N. Chandrababu Naidu’s brother-in-law. Bharat and Naidu’s son Nara Lokesh, the minister for IT and electronics, are married to sisters. The opposition has termed the move a “Rs 5,000 crore scam”. Former minister Gudivada Amarnath said,“The government is moving to regularise 54.79 acres of public land in the heart of Vizag, worth over Rs. 5,000 crore, instead of invoking the Land Grabbing Act, calling it a blatant example of abuse of power and feudal-style governance.”However, the university management contends that it is willing to pay the government-decided price and that the land valuation is being exaggerated for political mileage. “Gitam has historically maintained since close to 20 years that we are ready to pay the price that the government decides to allot. We are not asking anything for free.” Bharat wrote on X. Notably, GITAM is known for its high capitation fees.Council meeting disputesThe flashpoint occurred during the GVMC council meeting on January 30, presided over by Mayor Peela Srinivasa Rao. The council barred the media from a chaotic session and passed a resolution to regularise the encroachment without discussion. The Opposition did not walk out. Instead, YSRCP and Left party corporators stormed the well and staged a sit-in at the mayor’s podium to block the proceedings. The mayor allegedly ignored the slogans and held a quick voice vote and declared the agenda “unanimously adopted” amidst the din.Opposition members alleged that the proceedings were orchestrated to bypass debate. YSRCP floor leader Banala Srinivasa Rao claimed that CCTV cameras within the council hall were disabled to conceal the use of force against opposition corporators. “They disabled the CCTV cameras inside the council hall to hide their violence against us. We demand the footage be released immediately to the public,” Rao said, demanding the meeting be declared illegal.Botcha Satyanarayana, leader of the opposition in the legislative council, characterised the move as the “speed of looting public assets,” contrasting it with the state government’s “speed of doing business” slogan. “Is this ethical governance? This is a Rs 5,000 crore loot of public property,” Satyanarayana said. He further challenged deputy chief minister Pawan Kalyan and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – partners in the ruling alliance – to clarify their stance, noting that their silence on the issue was conspicuous.Both Pawan Kalyan and the local BJP leadership have refrained from issuing official statements regarding the allotment.E.A.S. Sarma alleges contempt of court and ‘zamindari’ ruleIn a series of strongly-worded letters addressed to special chief secretary (revenue) G. Sai Prasad and chief commissioner of land administration G. Jayalakshmi, former Union energy secretary E.A.S. Sarma has dissected the legal and ethical implications of the proposal, terming it a contempt of Supreme Court orders.In his first letter dated January 23, 2026, Sarma alleged that GITAM University had “illegally encroached” upon over 54.79 acres in Rushikonda and Endada villages. Sarma argued that no approval was given for encroachment. In fact, when the fence was demolished in 2020, the RDO at that time explicitly cited “unauthorised occupation” as the reason for demolishing the compound wall. He attributed the lack of action by local revenue and GVMC officials to “political patronage”.Drawing a sharp contrast in how the administration treats different economic classes, Sarma wrote: “It is a well-known fact that these same high-ranking revenue and GVMC officials – using police force and heavy machinery (proclainers) – evicted poor, marginalised people who migrated to the city for a livelihood and built huts on government lands… Street vendors serving the public were also ruthlessly removed in the same manner.”He asserted that this disparity implies that “in our state, there is one law for the powerful and another for the helpless.” Sarma questioned under which rule revenue officials granted permission for regularisation, citing BSO 24 and G.O.Ms. No. 571 (issued on September 14, 2012), which state that government lands should not be alienated to private entities. He specifically invoked the Supreme Court’s direction in the Jagpal Singh case (CA No. 1132/2011) from January 28, 2011, which directed states not to allot government lands within local body jurisdictions to private entities.Highlighting the financial magnitude, Sarma noted that the State Registration Department suggests a land value of approximately Rs 22 crore per acre in these areas. He argued that allotting such valuable land to a profit-making private institution necessitates action under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against responsible officials and political leaders, in line with the top court’s judgments in the 2G Spectrum and Coal Scam cases.Although the university is registered as a not-for-profit trust, Sarma argued that by collecting massive fees, occupying public land, and failing to provide the 25% free seats for the poor as mandated by the Supreme Court for land-grantees, GITAM is functionally a for-profit business and should be treated as such. He further pointed out that private entities in these villages had not only occupied government lands but also purchased ‘D-Patta’ (Assigned) lands meant for the poor, violating the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. In his letter he provides evidence of the High Court Case (WP No. 8940/2017) which confirms that the land in question was classified as Hill Poramboke and handed over to the Tourism Department in 1986/87, making any private occupation illegal.“Central and state governments are not ‘zamindari’ estates; they must function in accordance with democratic principles and the law,” Sarma wrote, demanding an investigation by Central agencies due to the possibility of political pressure on state investigative bodies.In a second letter dated January 25, 2026, Sarma provided a granular breakdown of the survey numbers involved in Rushikonda and Endada, asserting that many are on the Registration Department’s Prohibited List.Sarma also brought to light a “startling fact” regarding Survey Number 17 in Endada. He alleged that 67.37 acres of additional government land – despite being on the prohibited list – were “surreptitiously transferred” to GITAM on January 30, 2025, following orders from the District Collector. He estimated the market value of these specific lands to exceed Rs 1,500 crore and demanded that the Collector and the government be held accountable.War of words: Jagan vs. BharatThe issue has escalated into a direct exchange between former chief minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and the Visakhapatnam MP.Taking to X (formerly Twitter) on Sunday, Jagan Mohan Reddy accused the chief minister of running governance as a “real estate business.” He posted: “In Visakhapatnam, [Naidu] and his family are grabbing public land worth nearly RS 5,000 crore… As Chief Minister, Chandrababu has handed this valuable land to his own family member, Visakhapatnam MP Sri Bharat.”Reddy alleged that lands recovered and fenced by the government during the YSRCP tenure were being “gifted free of cost” and that the Education Department issued a memo to facilitate this despite having no authority. He also claimed that a YSRCP Mayor from a Backward Class community was removed to “bulldoze” the process.Responding to the allegations, Bharat issued a statement on X denying that the land was being given gratis. The MP disputed the Rs 5,000 crore valuation put forth by the opposition. He argued that adjacent lands in the Rajiv Swagruha project were auctioned between 2022 and 2024 for approximately Rs 60,000 to Rs 65,000 per square yard. Based on this, he calculated the value at roughly Rs 19.5 crore per acre, pegging the total value of the 54.79 acres at approximately Rs 1,000 crore.Bharat also drew a parallel to the previous government’s allotment of land to The International School Bangalore (TISB). “Was it not your government that gave around 11 acres to an international school TISB less than 1 km from Gitam campus at a rate of Rs 1 crore per acre in 2023?” he asked, questioning why the YSRCP was silent on that transaction. He further highlighted GITAM’s service as a district COVID hospital during the pandemic as evidence of its social contribution.Left parties question prioritisation of private sectorThe Left parties have coordinated a joint sit-in, with CPM State Secretary V. Srinivasa Rao alleging that the government has turned Visakhapatnam into a “hub for the land mafia.”Addressing a press conference in Visakhapatnam on January 31, Srinivasa Rao stated that the resolution violates the Representation of the People Act, 1951. “According to the Act, a Member of Parliament cannot obtain financial benefits under the ‘Office of Profit’ clause. Therefore, Sri Bharat is ineligible for his post,” he said. He described GITAM as a “business entity” charging “exorbitant” fees and questioned why government land should be gifted to a profit-making institution when 1.40 lakh people in Visakhapatnam are awaiting house sites.CPI national secretary K. Narayana and state secretary K. Ramakrishna also criticised the government’s reliance on the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model.Ramakrishna argued that the government was neglecting state-run universities, some of which lack vice-chancellors, while prioritising land allotment for private entities. “It is not right to neglect the universities and colleges run by the government while giving priority and lands to these private universities,” he said.Ramakrishna’s criticism alludes to a bitter controversy from May 2017 involving the GITAM family’s view of public institutions. At the time, former TDP MP M.V.V.S. Murthi – the founder of GITAM and grandfather of the current MP Sri Bharat – sparked a furore when he disparaged the historic Andhra University as a “Dayyala Kompa” (Devil’s Den) and “Bandula Doddi” (Cattle Shed). Justifying the decision to host the TDP’s ‘Mahanadu’ conclave on the university campus, the late MP had implied the state-run institution was a dilapidated ruin, a remark that drew widespread condemnation from student unions and academics who saw it as an attempt to degrade public education to boost the brand of his private university.Responding to the argument that the move supports educational needs, Ramakrishna said: “Success depends on who benefits. Private managements will be successful. But it’s a loss for students, and similarly, it’s a loss for the ordinary poor people.”He also addressed the timing of the protests, noting that the Opposition had raised these issues even during the previous YSRCP regime when compound walls were demolished. “It is the government’s responsibility to protect [land]. When lands worth crores of rupees are being encroached upon right before your eyes, if you say we can’t protect them and will regularise them later, everyone will turn this into a precedent,” Ramakrishna warned.