As of 1 November 2026, the most defensible answer is two-part: Andhra Pradesh’s G.O. Ms. No. 30 approved allotment of 854.97 acres for Reliance Industries’ proposed giga-scale AI data centre and cable landing station at Bhogapuram. But the public material reviewed does not establish how many acres Reliance itself has received or taken possession of.
854.97 acres approved for allotment is supported by the May order and contemporaneous reporting. The latest quantified update located, a Collector’s statement reported on 4 October, said the government held 25 acres and needed to acquire another 830. A 3 October report gave a different estimate—about 50 held and 800 still needed. Neither estimate is a Reliance-possession figure, and the reports do not reconcile the difference.
Status labels matter: approval, acquisition, transfer to APIIC, allotment to Reliance and physical handover are separate milestones.
The useful question is narrow: what does the public evidence say about the Reliance Bhogapuram data-centre land status—and what remains unproven behind a rounded “855 acres allotted” headline? The answer matters to readers following Andhra Pradesh’s AI data-centre pipeline, local land acquisition, site selection and project readiness.
Bhogapuram land status at a glance
The figures below refer to different things. Treating them as one “land secured” number would erase the distinction between a government approval and a completed transfer to the company.
| Question | Best-supported answer | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| What did Andhra Pradesh approve? | 854.97 acres for allotment to Reliance Industries Ltd. for a proposed AI data centre with a cable landing station. | A government approval milestone—not a possession certificate. |
| What is inside the 854.97 acres? | 853.97 acres identified as suitable for the data-centre project, plus a separate 1-acre CLS parcel that the order says was still to be identified. | The extra acre is part of the approved total, but the site was not identified in the order copy reviewed. |
| What land did the government reportedly have? | 25 acres on 4 October; a 3 October report said about 50 acres. | Two dated reports, with different estimates. Both describe government-held land, not Reliance-held land. |
| How much land had Reliance itself received? | No parcel-level total located in the public sources reviewed. | Do not convert the government-held estimate or the approval total into a company-possession claim. |
| What investment value is stated? | ₹1,08,010 crore as a proposed cumulative investment in the G.O. | A proposal value—not proof that this amount has been spent, financed or deployed. |
| Does the order specify an MW capacity? | The text calls it “Giga-Scale” but gives no numeric MW figure in the copy reviewed. | Land acreage and a “giga-scale” label do not establish a confirmed IT load or commissioned capacity. |
The G.O. copy reviewed was hosted by a third party, not on a Government of Andhra Pradesh domain. Its extent and core terms were cross-checked against contemporaneous reporting by Deccan Herald and The New Indian Express. The source limitations are set out below.
What G.O. Ms. No. 30 actually says
The Andhra Pradesh Information Technology, Electronics and Communications Department issued G.O. Ms. No. 30 on 20 May 2026. It concerns Reliance Industries Limited’s proposal, submitted on 31 March, for a “Giga-Scale AI Data Center” with a cable landing station in Vizianagaram district. The order describes the proposed cumulative investment as ₹1,08,010 crore. Contemporary reports say the approved area is spread across Polipalli, Bhogapuram West and Bhogapuram East.
The order is important, but its language also describes steps still to be taken. A text-readable copy of G.O. Ms. No. 30 says APIIC had identified 853.97 acres as suitable for the data-centre project. It directs the Revenue Department to alienate the relevant land to APIIC for further allotment to the company. It also says Reliance should pay 75% of the land cost to APIIC when APIIC initiates the land-acquisition process. The land is to be allotted at a 25% discount on its value.
Those clauses describe an approval and an administrative/acquisition route. They do not, by themselves, prove that acquisition was completed, that the stated payment was made, that title was transferred to APIIC, that APIIC executed a lease or allotment to Reliance, or that the company took physical possession. No receipt, parcel schedule, executed transfer or possession certificate was found in the public sources reviewed for this article.
Why both 853.97 and 854.97 acres appear
The numbers are not necessarily competing totals. The order copy and Deccan Herald’s detailed account distinguish:
- 853.97 acres identified by APIIC as suitable for the data-centre project; and
- one additional acre recommended for the cable landing station (CLS), with APIIC and the district administration asked to identify a suitable parcel for later allotment.
Together, 853.97 + 1 = 854.97 acres, commonly rounded to 855. “855 acres approved” is therefore a reasonable shorthand when it is attributed to the order. But it should not be rewritten as “855 acres transferred” or “855 acres in Reliance’s possession.” The order’s instruction to identify the CLS parcel is itself a reason to keep the proposed extent and the completed site footprint separate.
Approval is not the same as possession
In ordinary project reporting, “allotted” is sometimes used loosely for a policy approval, a land-bank decision, an executed lease and a completed handover. For a site being assembled across multiple villages, those are materially different events. A clear status note should say which one the source actually documents.
- Approval: the state authorises an allotment proposal and its terms.
- Identification: relevant parcels are mapped to village and survey numbers.
- Acquisition or consent: private parcels are acquired or otherwise secured through the applicable process, with required compensation and records.
- Agency transfer and company allotment: the land moves through the Revenue Department/APIIC route described in the order, and the company’s legal interest is documented.
- Possession and site readiness: a dated handover is recorded; separate power, water, access and construction milestones then need their own evidence.
The May order supports the first milestone and describes parts of the intended route. The October reports show that land assembly was still being discussed by district officials. The public sources reviewed do not join the later steps into a parcel-by-parcel record of land in Reliance’s hands.
What the October land reports say—and why the figures differ
The latest quantified land-status reporting located in this review is from The Hindu on 3 and 4 October. Both stories describe government-held land and land still to be acquired, but their estimates differ. Neither publishes a survey-number schedule or says how much land had been handed to Reliance.
| Report date | Reported estimate | Attribution and limits |
|---|---|---|
| 3 October 2026 | About 50 acres held by government; about 800 acres still needed. | The Hindu reported the estimate in a story about farmer opposition. It also cited a senior official saying roughly 250 acres were in an assigned-land category. The article did not provide a parcel-level inventory. |
| 4 October 2026 | 25 acres held by government; about 830 acres still to acquire. | The Hindu attributed this to Vizianagaram Collector S. Ramsundar Reddy. He said compensation would follow the Land Acquisition Act and local concerns would be clarified. |
| 7 October 2026 | No new acreage total. | Deccan Chronicle reported a renewed protest, a memorandum to the tahsildar and farmers’ livelihood concerns. |
The 3 October pair totals about 850 acres; the 4 October pair totals about 855. The stories do not explain the difference. The amounts are stated approximately, and the reports may reflect different counting, rounding or information available to each source—but the articles do not establish which explanation is right. Do not average the estimates or describe the difference as a verified five-acre change.
Most importantly, “government has 25 acres” is not shorthand for “Reliance has 25 acres.” The 4 October report explicitly describes land held by the government. To establish company possession, the public record would need to show the onward allotment and handover, not simply the government’s land position.
The 7 October protest report is useful context, but it does not update the land tally. It describes farmers marching from the panchayat office to the tahsildar’s office and submitting a memorandum. The report says farmers argued that acquisition of fertile agricultural land would affect livelihoods and the local agrarian economy. Those are reported concerns; this article does not independently classify each parcel or assess the merits of individual claims.
Through the source check on 1 November 2026, I did not locate a later public, parcel-level update that reconciles the 25/830 and 50/800 estimates or quantifies land delivered to Reliance. That is a limit of the sources found—not proof that no administrative progress occurred after the October reports.
What the court coverage does—and does not—establish
On 30 July, The Times of India reported that 43 farmers from the area had challenged the land order. According to that report, the State’s Advocate General told the Andhra Pradesh High Court that APIIC land would be used first and that farmers’ land would be taken only if needed, with consent or by following the applicable statutory procedure. The report says Justice Challa Gunaranjan recorded the State’s submission and disposed of the petition.
That is not the same as a judgment on the merits confirming that every parcel was lawfully acquired, that all land was transferred, or that the 854.97 acres were handed to Reliance. The underlying High Court order was not retrieved for this review, so the court status here is attributed to the news report. A 7 October Deccan Chronicle story also refers generally to affected landowners approaching courts, but does not identify case numbers or explain whether those references concern the same petition or separate proceedings.
One source discrepancy is worth flagging: the 30 July Times of India article describes the challenged extent as 834 acres in one sentence, while the G.O. copy and multiple May reports give 854.97 acres. This article uses 854.97 for the order’s approved extent and does not treat the 834 figure as a separate verified land schedule.
For the same reason, the October protest reports should not be collapsed into a conclusion that acquisition is either complete or unlawful. They document local opposition and official statements. A parcel-level answer would require the relevant notices, consent or award records, title/transfer documents and the actual court record for any proceedings that remain material.
Land approval does not prove power or water readiness
The G.O. includes enabling provisions that matter to a proposed data centre, but they are not evidence that the infrastructure has been built or commissioned. The order says APTRANSCO is to facilitate electrical infrastructure subject to feasibility checks, system studies and field assessment, with the project proponent bearing the infrastructure cost.
On water, the order says the government will facilitate water provision for 20 years through the relevant departments and APIIC, with the project proponent bearing the cost. It directs APIIC to study whether a desalination plant could be jointly owned and to present a feasible proposal to the government. A direction to study a plant is not a final plant approval, a named water source, a completed pipeline or a delivered water allocation.
For a data-centre operator, tenant, lender or equipment vendor, this distinction is practical. A land order can make a location eligible for further development; it cannot by itself confirm a grid connection date, sanctioned load, water supply, construction start or commissioned IT capacity. Grid and water milestones need separate, dated evidence. Gridvik’s overview of India data-centre power and policy bottlenecks explains why these readiness stages should be tracked separately.
₹1.08 lakh crore is a proposal value—not a spend or a capacity figure
The order describes a proposed cumulative investment of ₹1,08,010 crore. That is a project proposal value. It should not be presented as cash already invested, committed financing already drawn, construction expenditure incurred or an independently verified project cost to date.
The order uses “Giga-Scale” but the copy reviewed does not state a numeric MW capacity or phase schedule. Land area is not a substitute for a power or IT-load figure: design density, cooling approach, substations, setbacks, roads, water systems and the cable-landing-station footprint all affect how a site is used. Until a reliable company or government source states capacity and phasing, a precise GW figure should remain unconfirmed in a land-status article.
This is also why project trackers should separate announced, approved, under construction, energised and operational capacity. For a wider comparison of those milestones across India, see Gridvik’s India data-centre live-status review and investment map. For the regional connectivity story, see the Vizag–Singapore corridor explainer.
A practical example: how to label the project without overstating it
Imagine a vendor, lender or analyst updating a pipeline tracker after seeing “855 acres allotted” in a headline. If they mark the site as “855 acres secured by Reliance; build-ready,” they have turned an approval into a possession claim and a land milestone into a readiness claim.
Land: G.O. Ms. No. 30 approved 854.97 acres for allotment; 853.97 acres identified for the data-centre project plus a one-acre CLS parcel to identify. October reporting gives conflicting government-held estimates (25/830 on 4 Oct; about 50/800 on 3 Oct). Reliance possession: not publicly quantified in the sources reviewed. Capacity: no numeric MW figure in the order copy reviewed. Utilities: facilitation/study provisions are stated; delivery is not established here.
That wording is longer than a headline, but it preserves the evidence. It also helps a buyer or supplier avoid assuming that land approval equals construction timing, an available power allocation or a commercial service date. For local residents, the same distinction points to the records that matter most: which survey numbers are involved, what acquisition or consent route applies to each parcel, what compensation records exist, and whether any transfer or possession has been recorded.
What public records would materially change the answer?
The next useful update would connect the approved total to named parcels and then to the receiving party. The most informative records would be:
- The order’s parcel schedule and CLS location: village-wise and survey-number-wise extent, including the separately identified cable landing station acre.
- Acquisition or consent records: applicable notifications, consent documents, awards, compensation and rehabilitation records, and the date any title vested in the State.
- Revenue-to-APIIC transfer: the alienation or transfer record contemplated in the G.O., with the extent and date.
- APIIC-to-Reliance allotment: an executed allotment, lease or other instrument, not only the approval to proceed.
- Possession and handover: a dated certificate or record stating the parcels and acreage physically delivered.
- Utility and project milestones: grid feasibility and connection records, water-source and delivery arrangements, construction evidence, an explicit MW/phase disclosure and any material court orders.
Until those records are available, the clearest wording remains: 854.97 acres approved for allotment; October reporting gives different estimates of government-held land; Reliance’s own possession is not publicly quantified in the sources reviewed.
Frequently asked questions
How much land was approved for Reliance’s Bhogapuram data-centre proposal?
G.O. Ms. No. 30, dated 20 May 2026, approves allotment of 854.97 acres, commonly rounded to 855 acres. The order copy and detailed reporting distinguish 853.97 acres for the data-centre area and a separate one-acre CLS site still to be identified.
Has Reliance taken possession of all 855 acres?
The public sources reviewed do not establish that. The 4 October report attributes 25 acres held by the government and 830 still to acquire to the Collector; the 3 October report gives a different estimate. Neither report provides a company-possession total or a parcel-wise handover record.
Why do reports say both 25 acres and about 50 acres?
They are estimates in separate The Hindu reports published on 4 and 3 October, respectively. The reports do not explain the difference, and the pairs do not even total the same rounded extent. Keep the dates and attributions visible; do not average them or call the difference a confirmed acquisition update.
Did the Andhra Pradesh High Court approve the land acquisition?
The 30 July Times of India report says the Court disposed of the 43-farmer petition after recording the State’s submission about using APIIC land first and following consent or statutory process if additional land were needed. The underlying order was not retrieved here. That report is not a merits finding that every parcel was acquired or handed over.
Is the Bhogapuram project definitely 1 GW or 1.5 GW?
The G.O. copy reviewed uses “Giga-Scale” but does not state a numeric MW figure. This article therefore does not treat a precise 1 GW or 1.5 GW capacity as confirmed by the land order.
Does ₹1,08,010 crore mean that amount has already been invested?
No. The G.O. calls it the proposed cumulative investment. It is not a public accounting of expenditure incurred or financing drawn.
Has the one-acre cable landing station site been selected?
The G.O. copy reviewed directs APIIC and the district administration to identify a suitable one-acre CLS parcel for further allotment. No later parcel-specific confirmation was located in this source check.
Related Gridvik research
Method, scope and sources
Evidence checked through 1 November 2026 (IST). This is a desk-based comparison of the May land order, contemporaneous reporting and October status coverage. No site inspection, parcel-title search, company interview or contact with public officials was conducted. This article does not determine title, compensation adequacy, consent, statutory compliance or the status of any later court proceeding.
The G.O. PDF linked below is a copy hosted on a third-party website rather than an official Andhra Pradesh government domain. Its date, extent and key clauses were cross-checked against Deccan Herald and other May reporting. The underlying High Court order was not retrieved; the July court update is therefore attributed to The Times of India. One court story uses 834 acres in its text, inconsistent with the G.O. total reported elsewhere; this article follows 854.97 acres for the approved extent. The search did not locate a later parcel-level acreage update, which should not be read as proof that no later administrative activity took place.
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, G.O. Ms. No. 30, 20 May 2026. PDF copy (third-party hosted; not an official government-domain link). Supports the order date, 854.97-acre approval, 853.97-acre AIDC area, separate CLS acre, land process, proposed investment and utility provisions.
- Deccan Herald, 21 May 2026, “Andhra Pradesh offers Rs 19K cr incentives to Reliance for AI Data Centre in Vizianagaram.” Read the report. Reproduces detailed G.O. terms, including the 853.97-acre/one-acre split and Revenue Department/APIIC process.
- The New Indian Express, 21 May 2026, “855 acres allotted to Reliance Data Centre in Andhra.” Read the report. Reports the G.O. date, total extent, villages and project scope.
- Business Standard/PTI, 20 May 2026, “Andhra clears 800 acres for RIL’s $1 trn AI data centre in Vizianagaram.” Read the report. Reports the 75% land-cost payment clause tied to APIIC initiating acquisition.
- The Hindu, 3 October 2026, “Farmers stage protest opposing land acquisition for Reliance Data Center.” Read the report. Reports the about-50/about-800 estimate and farmer opposition.
- The Hindu, 4 October 2026, “Reliance data centre at Bhogapuram will create jobs, says Collector after farmers’ protest.” Read the report. Attributes the 25/830 estimate to the Collector.
- The Times of India, 30 July 2026, “Data centre project: Will take farmers’ land only if required, govt tells HC.” Read the report. Reports the 43-farmer challenge, the State’s submission and the petition’s disposal; not the underlying court order.
- Deccan Chronicle, 7 October 2026, “Vizianagaram Farmers Renew Protest Against Proposed Data Centre.” Read the report. Reports a renewed protest and livelihood concerns; it gives no new acreage total.
Bottom line: “854.97 acres approved for allotment” is supportable. “855 acres secured by Reliance” is not established by the public, parcel-level evidence reviewed as of 1 November 2026.