[13] Forty-Fourth Amendment Act of 1978 omitted Art 19(1) (f) with the net result being:- State must pay compensation at the market value for such land, building or structure acquired (Inserted by Constitution, Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964), the same can be found in the earlier rulings when property right was a fundamental right (such as 1954 AIR 170, 1954 SCR 558, which propounded that the word "Compensation" deployed in Article 31(2) implied full compensation, that is the market value of the property at the time of the acquisition.
Elsewhere, Justice O Chinnappa Reddy ruled (State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale on 7 July 1983) that the fundamental right to property has been abolished because of its incompatibility with the goals of "justice" social, economic and political and "equality of status and of opportunity" and with the establishment of "a socialist democratic republic, as contemplated by the Constitution.
There is no reason why a new concept of property should be introduced in the place of the old so as to bring in its wake the vestiges of the doctrine of Laissez Faire and create, in the name of efficiency, a new oligarchy.
However, when the government acquires the land for private companies, the consent of at least 80% of the project affected families shall be obtained through a prior informed process before government uses its power under the Act to acquire the remaining land for public good, and in case of a public-private project at least 70% of the affected families should consent to the acquisition process.
The urgency clause may only be invoked for national defense, security and in the event of rehabilitation of affected people from natural disasters or emergencies.
In addition to the above condition, wherever multi-crop irrigated land is acquired an equivalent area of cultivable wasteland shall be developed by the state for agricultural purposes.
In other type of agricultural land, the total acquisition shall not exceed the limit for all the projects in a District or State as notified by the Appropriate Authority.
[15] Some examples of the 25 additional services include schools, health centres, roads, safe drinking water, child support services, places of worship, burial and cremation grounds, post offices, fair price shops, and storage facilities.
The state governments of India, or private companies, may choose to set and implement a policy that pays more than the minimum proposed by LARR 2011.
For context purposes, the proposed land prices because of compensation and R&R LARR 2011 may be compared with land prices elsewhere in the world: A 2010 report by the Government of India, on labour whose livelihood depends on agricultural land, claims[21] that, per 2009 data collected across all states in India, the all-India annual average daily wage rates in agricultural occupations ranged between ₹53 and 117 per day for men working in farms (US$354 to 780 per year), and between ₹41 and 72 per day for women working in farms (US$274 to 480 per year).
The 2013 Act is expected to affect rural families in India whose primary livelihood is derived from farms.
According to Government of India, the contribution of agriculture to Indian economy's gross domestic product has been steadily dropping with every decade since its independence.
According to a July 2011 report from the Government of India, the average rural household per capita expenditure/income in 2010, was ₹928 per month (US$252 per year).