Andhra Pradesh data centre clearances total 2.51 GW as Tarluvada residents contest land transfers

Residents of Tarluvada, an Andhra Pradesh village included in Google's planned AI hub near Visakhapatnam, have told the Guardian that land they farmed was taken back and that promised replacements and jobs have not arrived. The state denies forcibly taking land. The dispute concerns a project publicly introduced as a 1 GW hub, while three state environmental clearances describe data centre proposals whose capacities add up to 2,512 MW, or about 2.51 GW.

The big change

• What changed: Google's Visakhapatnam hub was presented in a 2025 central-government announcement as a 1 GW project. Separate state clearances in 2026 describe three proposed sites with a combined 2.51 GW of capacity. That is the scale in the applications, not evidence of operating demand.
• Why it matters: The larger set of proposals covers land in Tarluvada and two other locations. Residents' accounts of losing access to farmland make the terms of land transfer, compensation and local consultation material to judging the project.
• What to watch: The challenges to the approvals and the state's account of how land was obtained remain central. The clearance documents establish permission for proposed construction; the reported disputes over process and promises remain unresolved in the records reviewed here.

Three clearances, three proposed sites

An October 2025 release from India's Press Information Bureau called the planned Google facility a 1 GW hyperscale data centre. Google and Adani's partnership announcement described an approximately $15 billion investment over five years, including data centre operations, subsea connectivity and clean-energy infrastructure. It described the computing project as “gigawatt-scale” without specifying a site-by-site total.

The subsequent environmental clearances describe 1,000 MW at Tarluvada, 1,000 MW at Rambilli and 512 MW at Adavivaram–Mudasarlova. The first two were issued on April 18, 2026, after applications dated April 9. The third was issued June 10. Adding the proposed capacities produces 2,512 MW. The documents are separate site approvals, and this total does not show how much capacity Google has contracted, built or put into service.

The clearances classify the projects as Category B2 building or construction work under item 8(a) of India's environmental assessment rules. Human Rights Forum, which has challenged the clearances, argues that this category avoided a full environmental impact assessment and a statutory public hearing. The classification is documented; whether it was appropriate is contested. The Guardian reports three petitions before the National Green Tribunal and a separate case in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. We have not verified the tribunal filings or their outcomes directly.

Land allocation and residents' accounts

An Andhra Pradesh government order dated August 20 says the state allotted 266.6 acres at Tarluvada to Vizag Mega Data Center Park Limited, one of three project companies it describes as subsidiaries of Adani Infra (India). The order also calls Adani Infra a partner of Raiden Infotech in building the data centre for Google. It documents an allotment to the project company; it does not establish how each resident's land rights were assessed or compensated.

In the Guardian's interviews, T Applaraju said land allocated to his family years earlier became inaccessible after fences went up in April. The newspaper reports that 520 Tarluvada families had allocated land taken back. P Venkat Rao, a Dalit farmer who received compensation, said he had been pressured to surrender his acre and had not received the replacement land or family job he said officials promised. These are residents' accounts reported by the Guardian, not findings of a court or an independently checked land register.

The Andhra Pradesh government told the Guardian that no land was forcibly taken and that eligible people received generous compensation. Adani said the necessary legal approvals had been obtained. Google told the newspaper it had engaged deeply with communities and expected no local impact. Those responses address different parts of the dispute; the public records reviewed here do not resolve the individual claims about notice, pressure or outstanding promises.

Water and power claims remain prospective

Residents and activists quoted by the Guardian raised concerns about water, heat, forests and electricity. Google told the paper the project would use air cooling rather than water cooling and would not affect local drinking-water supplies. Its partnership release promised new clean-energy generation and transmission. Those are company plans and assurances, not measured outcomes for an operating campus. The clearance capacity figures alone cannot establish actual electricity consumption or environmental effects.

Sources & further reading

• The Guardian's September 26 report from Tarluvada provides original resident interviews, the reported litigation and the responses it obtained from Google, Adani and the state. Its accounts of pressure, promises and local effects remain attributed reporting.
• India's Press Information Bureau announcement, October 14, 2025, records the government's public 1 GW description and its stated investment and employment expectations. It predates the three site clearances.
• The Tarluvada, Rambilli and Adavivaram–Mudasarlova signed state environmental clearances give the three proponents' proposed capacities and regulatory categories. Copies are hosted by a campaign site; the documents themselves bear state authority identifiers. Approval of proposed construction is not proof of operating capacity or impact.
• Andhra Pradesh Government Order 213, August 20, 2026, records land allotments to the project companies and the Google–Adani project relationship. It does not adjudicate household land or compensation claims.
• Google and Adani's October 2025 announcement gives their description of the planned investment, partners and clean-energy infrastructure. These are project plans.
• Human Rights Forum's April 27 statement sets out the challenger's objections to the clearances and consultation process. It is an advocacy position, not a tribunal ruling.