Land acquisition for public purposes has remained a contested terrain in India. Using BMIC as a case study, discuss how inadequate compensation, rehabilitation, and project non-delivery undermine the social contract of eminent domain.

Q. Land acquisition for public purposes has remained a contested terrain in India. Using BMIC as a case study, discuss how inadequate compensation, rehabilitation, and project non-delivery undermine the social contract of eminent domain. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Eminent domain rests on a compact: under Article 300A the State may compulsorily take private land, but only for a genuine public purpose, against fair compensation and resettlement. The Bengaluru–Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) shows how breaching each limb hollows out that compact.

Compensation: fair in form, inadequate in substance - Land for the 111-km corridor was acquired from the late 1990s under the colonial Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which awarded market value at depressed registered rates and ignored the appreciation the project itself created [1]. - A landowner's 2010 plea for a developed site, after monetary compensation, was decided only in January 2026 — sixteen years later [1]. Compensation delayed is compensation denied.

Rehabilitation: the missing limb - The 1894 framework carried no statutory rehabilitation entitlement; displaced farmers in Ramanagara and Mandya lost the land base of their livelihood without resettlement or a stake in the corridor [1]. - The LARR Act, 2013 later made Social Impact Assessment, R&R awards and 70% consent for PPP projects mandatory [2] — yet PRS's review flags weak implementation of these safeguards [3].

Non-delivery: the public purpose evaporates - In over 25 years only about 1 km of the 111-km expressway and none of the five planned townships materialised [1]. - Over 2,000 cases clog courts; the Karnataka High Court traced the collapse to corruption, bureaucratic inertia and litigation, and asked the State to revisit the project [1]. - Land left neither farmed nor developed inflicts a double loss — public money spent, congestion unrelieved.

BMIC demonstrates that eminent domain is legitimate only when the sacrifice imposed on the landloser is matched by a benefit actually delivered. Strict enforcement of LARR's consent, R&R and lapse-and-return of unused land, together with the Kelkar Committee's call for better risk-sharing, renegotiation frameworks and an adjudication tribunal in PPPs [4], can restore land acquisition to a partnership in development rather than a one-sided taking.

(~325 words)

Sources: 1. "1 km built in 25 years: HC asks Karnataka to scrap BMIC project" — The Hindu, January 13, 2026 (link not reachable; cited by title) — BMIC acquisition history, 1 km of 111 km built, zero townships, 2,000+ pending cases, HC observations of January 9, 2026 2. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — India Code — repeal of the 1894 Act; SIA, consent and R&R entitlements; return of unutilised land 3. Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Implementation and Effectiveness — PRS Legislative Research — gaps in implementation of LARR safeguards 4. Report of the Kelkar Committee on Revisiting & Revitalising the PPP Model of Infrastructure Development — PIB, Ministry of Finance — PPP risk-sharing, renegotiation and dispute-adjudication reforms