Examine the challenges in land acquisition for large infrastructure projects in India and suggest measures to balance developmental needs with local livelihood concerns.

Land is a scarce, livelihood-bearing asset, and its transfer for infrastructure sits at the intersection of law, federalism and local consent. The RFCTLARR Act, 2013 sought to make acquisition fair and participatory [1], yet contested projects such as the Parandur greenfield airport near Chennai show that legal compliance alone does not secure social acceptance [3].

Challenges in land acquisition

• Livelihood loss and displacement: acquisition of irrigated farmland uproots cultivators and landless labourers, whose dependence is often undocumented; sustained village-level protest at Parandur reflected exactly this insecurity [3].
• Procedural delay: mandatory Social Impact Assessment for every acquisition, without a minimum threshold, can slow project implementation [2].
• Time and cost overruns: delays in land acquisition, alongside forest and environment clearances, are among the most commonly reported reasons for time overruns in large central sector projects [5].
• Consent asymmetry: consent requirements apply to private and PPP acquisitions but not to public sector undertakings, weakening the affected community's voice in state-led projects [2].
• Policy discontinuity: a project may clear the two-stage site clearance–in-principle approval route under the Greenfield Airports Policy, vetted with AAI, DGCA and the Ministry of Defence [4], and still be abandoned when the state government changes [3].

Measures to balance development and livelihoods

• Front-load consent: undertake genuine consultation and SIA at site-selection stage, not after notification, so that alternate sites are compared transparently.
• Livelihood-centric R&R: extend rehabilitation entitlements to non-titleholders and adopt land-pooling or annuity models that make the affected family a partner in the project's returns.
• Uniform consent norms: rationalise thresholds across public, private and PPP projects while capping SIA timelines.
• Institutional continuity: bind successive governments through Centre–State project agreements and single-window clearance tracking.

Infrastructure and livelihood security are complementary, not competing, goals. If acquisition is designed as a negotiated partnership rather than an act of eminent domain, India can build capacity without eroding the constitutional promise of Article 300A and the dignity of the displaced.