YSRCP questions ‘absence’ of housing proposals for the poor in Amaravati

The YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) has said that the replies given by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs in the Parliament have triggered a fresh political controversy over the absence of housing proposals for the poor under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban (PMAY-U) 2.0 scheme in the capital region of Amaravati.

The replies, provided in response to questions raised by YSRCP MPs Maddila Gurumoorthy in the Lok Sabha and Meda Raghunath Reddy in the Rajya Sabha, revealed that the Andhra Pradesh government had not sought approval for any houses under the scheme for the beneficiaries in Amaravati, the YSRCP claimed.

In a release on Thursday, the YSRCP said that according to the Union government, Andhra Pradesh has received approval for 61,084 houses under PMAY-U 2.0, with Central assistance of ₹882.32 crore.

During the latest meeting of the Central Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee on June 17, 2026, an additional 12,370 houses were approved for 107 urban local bodies across the State, attracting Central assistance of ₹185.55 crore.

However, the Amaravati region did not figure among the locations for which proposals were submitted. The Union government has clarified that approvals under the scheme are granted on the basis of proposals received from State governments, the party said.

The development has prompted criticism from the YSRCP, which alleged that the coalition government led by Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu had “ignored the housing needs of economically weaker sections in the capital region”.

The YSRCP questioned why housing proposals had been submitted for more than a hundred towns and cities while Amaravati was left out. They argued that a capital city should provide opportunities for people from all sections of society, including the middle-class and weaker sections.

The YSRCP also alleged that the government’s vision for Amaravati favoured affluent groups and large-scale commercial interests at the expense of ordinary citizens. It demanded an explanation from the State government and questioned the reasons for excluding Amaravati from the list of beneficiaries under the PMAY-U 2.0 scheme.

The leaders maintained that inclusive development requires equal access to housing and basic infrastructure and asserted that the poor should be among the primary beneficiaries of any capital development project.