Fair Compensation in Land Acquisition: A Comparative Analysis of Indian and Nigerian Land Law Systems

Author: Nabula Gabriel Loghselem
Institution: Rivers State University ( A graduate)

————————————————————————————————————

đź’ˇ 3 Quick Takeaways

  1. India’s Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, provides a framework combining market-based valuation, solatium, procedural safeguards, and rehabilitation and resettlement.
  2. Nigeria’s Land Use Act, 1978, primarily links compensation to unexhausted improvements on land, creating a different approach to valuation and the economic consequences of compulsory acquisition.
  3. The comparison highlights the importance of transparent valuation, meaningful community participation, access to judicial remedies, and adequate support for people displaced by compulsory acquisition.

Abstract

This article comparatively examines the legal frameworks governing fair compensation for compulsory land acquisition in India and Nigeria, focusing principally on India’s Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Nigeria’s Land Use Act, 1978. It considers the differing approaches to valuation, procedural safeguards, solatium, rehabilitation, resettlement, and the protection of affected persons.

While India adopts a welfare-oriented and participatory framework that considers market value, attached assets, livelihood disruption, solatium, and rehabilitation, Nigeria’s system is more State-centred and primarily compensates for unexhausted improvements rather than the market value of land. The article also examines judicial interventions in Nigeria concerning inadequate compensation and access to courts.

It argues that although Nigeria’s framework provides administrative certainty, it may inadequately reflect the broader economic and social consequences of compulsory acquisition. It recommends reforms incorporating clearer market-based valuation, broader livelihood compensation, and stronger rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements to promote fairness, equity, and justice.

I. Introduction

Land acquisition for public purposes remains an important exercise of State power under the land law systems of India and Nigeria. Although both jurisdictions recognise the State’s authority to acquire land for public purposes, they differ in their approaches to ownership, valuation, compensation, and the protection of affected persons.

Nigeria’s land law system is regulated principally by the Land Use Act, 1978 (LUA), which establishes a national framework for landholding. The Act distinguishes between statutory rights of occupancy, generally associated with urban areas, and customary rights of occupancy, which may be granted by local governments in non-urban areas. It also regulates dealings in rights of occupancy and provides for the revocation of such rights in specified circumstances.

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, also protects property interests and provides a constitutional basis for challenging compulsory acquisition where applicable legal requirements are not satisfied.

India’s principal legislation in this area is the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). Its framework extends beyond the monetary value of land by addressing social impact assessment, public participation, compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement.

Although neither country’s land law is governed by a single statute in every respect, this article focuses on the LUA, 1978, and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, to compare their approaches to fair compensation.

The central question is how each system balances the State’s power to acquire land for public purposes against the individual’s interest in receiving adequate compensation and avoiding disproportionate economic and social loss.

II. Comparative Analysis of the Two Systems

A. Legal Structure

India’s RFCTLARR Act adopts a framework intended to promote transparency, participation, and consideration of the effects of acquisition. Its provisions include social impact assessment (SIA), public hearings, expert appraisal, and consideration of alternatives before acquisition proceeds.

These requirements place acquisition within a broader procedural framework rather than treating compensation as an isolated monetary calculation. The Act also connects acquisition with rehabilitation and resettlement, recognising that displacement can affect livelihoods and communities beyond the loss of legal title.

Nigeria’s LUA follows a different institutional structure. It vests land in the Governor of each State to be held in trust and administered for the benefit of the people, while local governments exercise specified powers concerning customary rights of occupancy. Section 28 provides for the revocation of rights of occupancy on grounds recognised by the Act, including overriding public interest.

Under this framework, compensation is closely linked to the revocation of occupancy rights and the statutory rules governing the value of improvements. Compared with India’s legislation, the LUA does not establish an equivalent comprehensive statutory commitment to rehabilitation and resettlement.

B. Subject of Compensation

The two jurisdictions differ substantially in identifying what must be compensated.

Under the Indian framework, compensation may include the market value of the land, the value of attached assets, and additional statutory amounts. The legislation also recognises affected families whose livelihoods are disrupted by acquisition.

The definition of an “affected family” under the RFCTLARR Act extends beyond landowners in specified circumstances. Depending on the statutory requirements, it may include tenants, sharecroppers, agricultural labourers, forest-dependent persons, and other persons affected by displacement.

The source refers to Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana (2023), reported as SCC OnLine SC 892, in connection with the requirement of fair compensation. The precise holding and citation should be verified against the original judgment before publication.

Nigeria’s LUA adopts a narrower approach to the subject of compensation. Compensation is principally associated with the value of unexhausted improvements on the land, such as buildings, crops, installations, and other qualifying improvements, rather than the market value of the land itself.

This creates a significant difference between the systems. The Indian framework expressly incorporates land valuation and broader statutory benefits, whereas the Nigerian framework places greater emphasis on compensating qualifying improvements following the revocation of a right of occupancy.

Constitutional Protection and Access to Courts in Nigeria

Section 44(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, provides constitutional protection against compulsory taking of property except in accordance with law and subject to the prescribed compensation requirements.

The interaction between constitutional protection and the LUA has been considered in litigation concerning the adequacy of compensation.

In Controller-General of Prisons v. Elema (2023) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1897) 123 (SC), the source identifies the relationship between Section 47(2) of the LUA and the constitutional right to seek redress. The statutory provision restricts judicial inquiry into questions concerning the amount or adequacy of compensation under the Act. The source reports that the Court considered this restriction in light of Section 44 of the Constitution.

The source also discusses His Royal Highness, Obong David Edu & Ors v. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited & Ors (2025) LPELR-63684 (SC), concerning the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and State High Courts in compensation disputes arising from compulsory land acquisition.

These decisions highlight the importance of constitutional safeguards and jurisdictional rules in determining whether affected persons can obtain judicial review of acquisition and compensation decisions.

C. Method of Valuation

India’s compensation framework uses a statutory valuation structure. Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act addresses the determination of market value, Section 27 concerns the determination of compensation, Section 29 deals with the value of attached assets, and Section 30 provides for solatium and additional amounts.

This structure seeks to reduce arbitrary valuation by prescribing methods and relevant considerations for determining compensation.

Nigeria’s framework is less comprehensive in its approach to valuation. Compensation under the LUA is principally calculated by reference to qualifying unexhausted improvements, subject to the applicable statutory rules. The source also identifies replacement-cost considerations, depreciation, and interest in cases involving delayed payment.

Although this approach provides an administrative basis for determining compensation, it may not fully account for the market value of land, relocation expenses, or the wider economic consequences of displacement.

The difference illustrates two distinct approaches: a broader statutory valuation framework in India and a framework in Nigeria that focuses more narrowly on the value of qualifying improvements.

D. Solatium and Additional Amounts

The RFCTLARR Act provides for solatium under Section 30, including a statutory amount equivalent to 100 per cent of the compensation amount calculated in accordance with the Act. Section 30 also provides for an additional amount calculated at 12 per cent per annum on market value for the specified period between the preliminary notification and the award or taking of possession, as applicable under the statutory provisions.

These amounts form part of the statutory framework intended to address the consequences of compulsory acquisition beyond the basic valuation of the land and attached assets.

The source refers to RB Dealers Private Limited v. Metro Railway, Kolkata (2019), reported as INSC 771, concerning the calculation of solatium and related amounts. The precise holding and calculation principles should be checked against the judgment before publication.

The LUA does not provide an equivalent general solatium regime. Its approach focuses principally on direct compensation for qualifying improvements and applicable interest for delayed payment.

The absence of an equivalent solatium provision is a significant difference between the two systems. It also raises questions about how the Nigerian framework accounts for the wider consequences of compulsory acquisition.

E. Procedural Safeguards

India integrates compensation with procedural safeguards intended to make acquisition more transparent and participatory. These include social impact assessment, public hearings, publication and appraisal of reports, and consideration of whether the acquisition serves a genuine public purpose and uses the minimum land necessary.

Such safeguards are intended to ensure that compensation is accompanied by a process through which the necessity and consequences of acquisition can be examined.

Nigeria’s LUA also establishes administrative mechanisms for land allocation and the administration of occupancy rights. However, its procedural framework is less extensive in relation to social impact assessment and public participation before acquisition.

Judicial review and litigation can consequently play an important role where affected persons challenge the legality of acquisition or the adequacy of compensation. The decisions discussed above illustrate the importance of access to courts, subject to the jurisdictional requirements governing the particular claim.

F. Rehabilitation and Livelihood Protection

Rehabilitation and resettlement represent another major difference between the two systems.

The RFCTLARR Act treats rehabilitation and resettlement as components of the acquisition framework. Sections 31 and 32 address rehabilitation and resettlement awards and the provision of specified infrastructural amenities. These measures reflect the recognition that monetary compensation alone may not restore the welfare of families displaced by acquisition.

The Nigerian LUA provides a more limited approach. Section 33(1) allows for resettlement in specified circumstances involving the revocation of developed land used for residential purposes, subject to the statutory framework. The source characterises this provision as discretionary rather than a general entitlement to comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement.

Consequently, the Nigerian system places greater emphasis on compensating property improvements than on addressing the full social and economic disruption that may follow displacement.

III. Strengths and Limitations of the Two Systems

A. India

India’s framework incorporates market-based valuation, statutory solatium, procedural safeguards, and rehabilitation and resettlement. Its emphasis on social impact assessment and participation also provides mechanisms for examining the effects of acquisition before it proceeds.

However, implementation remains an important concern. The source refers to a January 2026 Standing Committee report identifying implementation failures, including shortcomings in the conduct of impact assessments in Scheduled Areas. This reference and the specific findings should be verified against the original report before publication.

The framework’s detailed procedures can also make acquisition administratively complex and time-consuming. These difficulties may delay projects and increase the burden on implementing authorities and affected persons.

B. Nigeria

Nigeria’s system provides an administrative framework for the management of land rights and the revocation of rights of occupancy. Its institutional structure offers a basis for State administration of land and for determining compensation in accordance with the LUA.

Its principal limitation, as identified in this comparison, is the narrower scope of compensation. Where valuation focuses on improvements rather than the market value of the land and the broader consequences of displacement, affected persons may not receive compensation that reflects their full economic and social loss.

The source also identifies bureaucratic inefficiencies affecting the acquisition of land titles, approvals, and permits as a further challenge.

IV. Recommendations for Reform in Nigeria

The comparison suggests several reforms that could strengthen the Nigerian framework for compulsory land acquisition.

First, introduce clearer market-based valuation. Reform could provide more explicit and transparent methods for determining compensation, including clearer rules on the valuation of land and qualifying improvements.

Second, strengthen social impact assessment and public participation. Mandatory social impact assessments and public hearings, drawing on relevant elements of the Indian framework, could help ensure that communities have an opportunity to understand and respond to proposed acquisitions.

Third, broaden livelihood-related compensation. Compensation should be assessed with attention to the economic consequences of displacement, rather than focusing exclusively on physical improvements to land.

Fourth, establish stronger rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements. Land-for-land compensation and comprehensive resettlement packages could help displaced landholders maintain their livelihoods and social structures where appropriate.

Fifth, improve dispute resolution. The source recommends considering specialised land tribunals to address acquisition and compensation disputes more efficiently and reduce the delays and costs associated with ordinary court proceedings.

These proposals aim to align compulsory acquisition more closely with fairness, equity, transparency, and the protection of affected communities.

V. Conclusion

India and Nigeria both permit compulsory land acquisition for public purposes, but their legal frameworks reflect different approaches to fairness and compensation.

India’s RFCTLARR Act treats compensation as part of a broader process involving market valuation, transparency, participation, solatium, and rehabilitation and resettlement. Nigeria’s LUA focuses more narrowly on compensation for qualifying improvements following the revocation of rights of occupancy.

The comparison suggests that the Indian framework provides a broader statutory basis for addressing the economic and social consequences of acquisition. Nevertheless, implementation challenges and procedural complexity remain important concerns.

Nigeria could strengthen its framework through clearer market-based valuation, broader livelihood compensation, mandatory social impact assessment, meaningful public participation, and more comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement provisions.

Ultimately, compulsory acquisition should not be assessed solely by whether the State has obtained the land required for a public purpose. The adequacy of the legal process also depends on whether affected persons receive compensation and support that fairly address the losses imposed on them.

The law should therefore operate not only as an instrument of land administration but also as a means of promoting fairness, equity, and social justice.

References

Cases

  1. Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana (2023), SCC OnLine SC 892.
  2. Controller-General of Prisons v. Elema (2023) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1897) 123 (SC).
  3. His Royal Highness, Obong David Edu & Ors v. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited & Ors (2025) LPELR-63684 (SC).
  4. RB Dealers Private Limited v. Metro Railway, Kolkata (2019), INSC 771.
  5. Amale v. Sokoto State Government (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1292) 181 (SC).

Legislation

  1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.
  2. Land Use Act, 1978.
  3. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
  4. Indian Succession Act, 1925, where relevant to the broader legal framework.

Secondary Sources

  1. Amiditor, Rex-Ogbuku Jude, “An Appraisal of the Legal Framework for Land Acquisition in Nigeria: Dissecting Challenges and Discovering Lessons from India” (2026), IJLGRL.
  2. Raghuram, G., and Simi Sunny, “Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Ordinance 2014: A Process Perspective” (Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, July 2015).
  3. Iweghulam, E., “Private Property Rights and Compulsory Acquisition Process in Nigeria: Another View” (2015), Commonwealth and Property Law.
  4. Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, India Code.
  5. “Section 29 Nigerian Land Use Act,” LawGlobal Hub.
  6. Ulaka, Saptagiri Sankar, et al., Standing Committee on Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Report on the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (January 2026).

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Lawscape.

The Lawscape — clear, practical legal insight for students and future lawyers.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *