Despite PRAGATI resolving over 7,000 infrastructure project issues in a decade, land acquisition remains the dominant bottleneck. Critically examine the structural reasons for this and suggest institutional reforms short of amending the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

Q. Despite PRAGATI resolving over 7,000 infrastructure project issues in a decade, land acquisition remains the dominant bottleneck. Critically examine the structural reasons for this and suggest institutional reforms short of amending the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Land acquisition sits where Article 300A's property guarantee meets India's infrastructure ambition. PRAGATI's decade proves that real-time monitoring can resolve disputes case-by-case, but cannot dissolve the structural frictions embedded in land governance itself.

Scale of the problem - Across 50 meetings, PRAGATI reviewed 3,300+ projects worth ₹85 lakh crore, resolving 7,156 of 7,735 issues [1]. - Yet land acquisition remained the single largest issue category (35%), ahead of forest/wildlife clearances (20%) and right-of-use/way (18%) [1].

Structural reasons - Fragmented, presumptive land records: unclear titles and outdated revenue maps make identification of "affected families" itself contested. - Multi-agency layering: District Collectors, state revenue departments, MoEFCC and utility owners operate on separate timelines, so sequential clearances compound delay [1]. - Procedural density of the 2013 Act: mandatory Social Impact Assessment, consent of 70–80% of affected families, and R&R obligations create a long statutory runway [3]. - Parallel regimes: 16 Acts (Railways Act 1989, SEZ Act 2005) stand exempted, producing uneven standards and litigation over which law applies [3].

A critical caveat The Act is not the sole culprit. Its 4× rural / 2× urban compensation formula corrected the coercive 1894 legacy [3], and the lapse of the 2015 Amendment Bill confirmed that diluting consent is politically unviable. The deficit is largely administrative capacity and coordination, not statutory design.

Institutional reforms without amendment - Complete digitised, geo-referenced land records and integrate them into PRAGATI's geo-spatial dashboard [2]. - Create state land banks and corridor-level advance acquisition ahead of project sanction. - Parallel-process SIA with environmental and forest clearances through a single-window state cell. - Build dedicated R&R and valuation cadres, and make LARR Authorities fully functional for time-bound dispute settlement. - Replicate PRAGATI at state level, where most acquisition decisions actually occur [2].

PRAGATI has shown that transparency and outcome-driven review can move stalled projects without weakening rights [2]. Extending that model downward — through digitised records, advance land banking and administrative capacity — offers a rights-consistent path to faster delivery, aligning development with the constitutional promise of fair procedure under Article 300A.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan's PRAGATI @ 50 press briefing — Akashvani News (Prasar Bharati) — 3,300+ projects worth ₹85 lakh crore reviewed; 7,156 of 7,735 issues resolved; land acquisition the largest pending-issue category 2. PRAGATI: A Decade of Cooperative, Outcome-Driven Governance — Press Information Bureau, 13 January 2026 — PRAGATI's design (digital data, video-conferencing, geo-spatial technology) and Centre–State review model 3. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2013 — PRS Legislative Research — SIA and consent requirements, 4×/2× compensation formula, 16 exempted legislations