Rethinking land acquisition in South Asia

Few colonial laws have left a deeper imprint on South Asia's administrative structure than the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. Enacted by the British to facilitate infrastructure and strategic projects, it empowered governments to acquire private land for a "public purpose". Both Pakistan and India inherited this framework at independence. Yet while India has substantially reformed its acquisition regime, Pakistan continues to operate largely within the spirit of the original law, though with periodic procedural modifications.

For those associated with Pakistan's oil and gas exploration and production sector, land acquisition is not merely a legal matter. It sits at the operational core of energy development. Having remained professionally connected with this responsibility for over two decades in Pakistan's energy sector, this writer has seen how exploration wells, pipelines, access roads, processing facilities and other ancillary works hinge upon timely access to land. Delays in acquisition can become as serious a constraint on energy security as technical or financial limitations.

Pakistan's framework remains administratively driven, centralised, and heavily dependent upon district revenue authorities. From a project perspective, this offers a degree of flexibility. Strategic undertakings, particularly in oil and gas, may proceed faster where the state retains overriding authority and procedural discretion. In a high-risk industry where delays are expensive and exploration outcomes uncertain, prolonged disputes over land may undermine commercial viability.

Yet the shortcomings of the system are equally evident. Compensation disputes, opaque valuation, fragmented land records, overlapping claims and bureaucratic delay frequently complicate implementation. Public engagement is often limited, allowing manageable concerns to escalate into avoidable disputes. A law originally designed for colonial administrative convenience increasingly appears out of step with the expectations of a more rights-conscious society.

An equally important question concerns the meaning of "public purpose" itself. When land is acquired for roads, canals, schools or hospitals, the public interest is self-evident. But compulsory acquisition for commercially profitable oil and gas ventures presents a more complicated question. Governments justify such acquisition on grounds of energy security, economic development and strategic national interest. That reasoning is understandable. Yet fairness demands scrutiny of how landowners are treated when discoveries become commercially successful.

Under the prevailing framework, landowners are usually compensated once on assessed market value and thereafter excluded from any share in the economic gains of a productive field. Legally, this may be defensible. Morally, the matter is less straightforward. Exploration is inherently risky, and companies invest substantial capital with no guarantee of success. Yet where fields remain profitable for decades, there is merit in considering modest benefit-sharing arrangements for affected landowners. Such mechanisms could strengthen trust, reduce resentment and create a fairer relationship between communities and extractive industries.

The debate over compulsory acquisition is not unique to South Asia. Even in the United States, where property rights enjoy strong constitutional protection, courts have occasionally broadened the state's authority. In 2005, the US Supreme Court, in Kelo v. City of New London, upheld the compulsory acquisition of private homes for transfer to a private developer as part of an urban redevelopment plan, ruling that anticipated economic growth and employment could constitute a valid public purpose. The judgment sparked intense controversy and prompted several US states to tighten their laws, reflecting the enduring tension between development and private property rights.

India, despite sharing the same colonial inheritance, pursued a different path. Following criticism over displacement and inadequate compensation, it enacted the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The reforms enhanced compensation, introduced social impact assessments, expanded consultation and emphasised rehabilitation and consent in certain categories of projects.

These changes improved transparency and strengthened safeguards against arbitrary acquisition. Yet critics argue that the process has also become cumbersome, increasing delays and costs for infrastructure and industrial development. Excessive proceduralism, particularly in sectors requiring urgent execution, may itself impede national progress.

The comparison between Pakistan and India reveals an instructive paradox. Pakistan's system permits greater administrative flexibility but suffers from weak transparency and stakeholder confidence. India's approach offers stronger protections but sometimes risks sacrificing efficiency at the altar of procedure. Neither model provides a complete answer.

Many developed countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, increasingly rely on a middle path. Compulsory acquisition remains available where necessary, but governments generally prioritise negotiated settlements, transparent compensation, stronger consultation, digitised land records and credible grievance mechanisms. Landowners are treated less as obstacles and more as stakeholders.

Pakistan need not imitate India or the developed world mechanically. Its institutional realities and strategic priorities differ. Yet meaningful reform is overdue. Better valuation systems, modernised land records, improved consultation, faster dispute resolution and imaginative benefit-sharing in commercially successful extractive projects could strengthen public trust without obstructing development.

The real challenge is not choosing between state authority and citizen rights. Sustainable development requires both. Land acquisition must remain efficient enough to support national progress, yet fair enough to command legitimacy. A law that secures land but loses trust ultimately secures neither.