India Explained
ImplementedINCManmohan Singh, coalition government

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Replaced the 1894 land acquisition law with consent, social impact assessment and rehabilitation requirements, in force from 1 January 2014; a 2014-15 attempt to amend it lapsed.

Land acquisition

Facts

  • The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 7 September 2011, passed by the Lok Sabha on 29 August 2013 and the Rajya Sabha on 4 September 2013, received assent on 27 September 2013 and came into force on 1 January 2014 [3].
  • Acquisition for private projects needs the consent of 80% of affected families and for public-private partnerships 70%; no consent is needed where the government itself acquires land for a public purpose [2][3].
  • The Act requires a social impact assessment, restricts acquisition of irrigated multi-cropped land, and requires land unused for five years to be returned to original owners or a land bank [2].
  • Thirteen laws, including the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Railways Act, 1989, were exempted from it but had to bring their compensation and rehabilitation provisions in line within a year (by 1 January 2015) [2].
  • An Ordinance of December 2014 amended the Act, a 2015 amendment Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 24 February 2015 and passed by it on 10 March 2015, and the Ordinance was re-promulgated, including on 30 May 2015; a joint parliamentary committee could not reach consensus and the Bill lapsed [2][3].
  • The 2015 Bill proposed exempting five categories of project (defence, rural infrastructure, affordable housing, industrial corridors and infrastructure projects on government-owned land) from the consent requirement [2].
  • The Standing Committee on Rural Development and Panchayati Raj presented a report on the Act's implementation on 18 December 2025 [1].

Why

Reasons given by those who did it

  • The Act's full title states its aims as fair compensation, transparency, rehabilitation and resettlement in land acquisition [2].
  • The Act is built around consent, social impact assessment and return of unused land [2]. The sources consulted do not quote the Government's statement of objects, so no further reasoning is attributed here.

Criticism of that reasoning

  • Industry bodies argued the Bill could limit affordable housing (DLF) and make assembling large contiguous parcels almost impossible (CREDAI), and some economists argued that the compensation mark-up was arbitrary [3].

Benefits and concerns

Benefits (2)

  • Introduced procedural safeguards for affected landowners and communities that did not exist under the 1894 Act.Consent thresholds of 80% (private) and 70% (PPP), a social impact assessment, limits on acquiring irrigated multi-cropped land and return of land unused for five years [2].
  • Provided rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements beyond land value.Wikipedia describes upfront allowances, a job, lump sum or annuity for families, and a house of at least 50 square metres for rural families who lose a home, and 20% of developed land reserved for owners in urban acquisitions; most of these figures are drawn from the 2011 Bill and may differ from the enacted Act [3].

Concerns (2)

  • Implementation gaps identified by a parliamentary committee a decade after enactment.The Standing Committee (18 December 2025) found Gram Sabha consent is often 'a mere formality', recommended making social impact assessment findings binding, and cited outdated circle rates causing undervaluation, land reclassification to lower compensation, resettlement colonies lacking basic services and unmet employment commitments [1].
  • Industry and some economists said the consent and compensation rules could slow land assembly, and the Act has been politically contested.Criticism from DLF, CREDAI and economists [3]; the 2014-15 Ordinance and amendment Bill lapsed without consensus [2][3]. Whether the Act has delayed particular projects is not documented in the sources used.

Evidence points

+5.5
points, mean of two scorers (scale −25 to +25)
+5 to +6
range between the two scorers' totals
Low confidence
1 criterion where scorers differ
ReachHow many people did the action materially affect?
Mean +2.5A +2B +3
Outcome evidenceDo official or independent data show the intended result (or its opposite), compared with the era baseline and peers?
Mean 0.0A 0B 0
Cost and sustainabilityIs the fiscal cost proportionate, and is the effect durable?
Mean +0.5A 0B +1
Process and rightsWas it made with debate, consultation and legal soundness, and did it respect rights and court rulings?
Mean +2.5A +3B +2
DeliveryWas it implemented as announced, on time and at scale?
Mean 0.0A +1B −1Scorers differ

Positive meanNegative meanScorer AScorer B

Scorer A. Introduced consent and impact-assessment safeguards after extensive legislative process, but a 2025 committee found weak implementation and the 2015 amendment attempt lapsed.

Scorer B. Added consent, impact assessment and resettlement safeguards, but a 2025 committee found consent often a formality and compensation undervalued.

Context used when scoring

Era baseline
Land acquisition was governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which did not require owner consent or a social impact assessment, and acquisition for public purposes was a state power exercised under that law.
Lag before outcomes show
5 years
Shocks considered
ordinance-lapse-2015, state-level-amendments
Uncertainty
Low confidence. Scorer totals are +6 and +5. How uncertainty is shown.

In depth

The 2013 Act replaced a colonial-era statute with one built around consent, assessment and rehabilitation. For private projects it requires the consent of 80% of affected families and for public-private partnerships 70%, and it requires a social impact assessment before acquisition. It also restricts the acquisition of irrigated multi-cropped land and requires that unused land be returned after five years. It was passed by both Houses in August-September 2013 and took effect on 1 January 2014.

Supporters regard it as a rights-based framework for people affected by acquisition. Critics, including industry bodies and some economists, argued the consent requirement and compensation rules would slow land assembly for housing and infrastructure. In 2014-15 the government proposed exempting five categories of project from consent and impact assessment through an ordinance and a Bill; the Bill passed the Lok Sabha but lapsed after a joint committee failed to reach consensus.

A December 2025 report of the Standing Committee on Rural Development found, in relation to the Act’s implementation, that consent processes were often formalities and compensation and rehabilitation had gaps, particularly in scheduled areas. The evidence available for this entry covers the design of the Act and committee findings; it does not include a systematic count of acquisitions delayed or completed under the Act, and compensation multiples are not stated because the source for them describes the earlier Bill.

Source note: no primary document (statute text, Gazette notification, court judgment or official dataset) is listed for this entry; its sources are bill summaries, legal-news reports, encyclopaedic or commentary pieces. Confidence is therefore set to low until the primary text is checked.

Sources

Last reviewed .Report an error orchallenge a score.

Related actions

  • ImplementedBJPWater & LandUnsettled

    Jal Jeevan Mission (Har Ghar Jal)

    Centre-state programme launched 15 August 2019 to give every rural household a functional tap connection; official coverage rose from 17% to about 80% by early 2025, with the 2024 target missed.

    Evidence points +11.0 (range +11.0 to +11.0)