This is my opinion which may sound strange. A land has to be utilized either for agriculture or building house(s) or establishing projects. When someone or some family owns a vast land, say more than 200 hectares, the government ought to give the owner, say 3 years, to make use of the land for self-benefit & for the advantage of the country. If it is not exploited, then there ought to be  land acquistion  & piece by piece, the land is to be divided & granted to those who will use it. The closest relatives of the person or the family (previous owners) will have priority in this acquisition process in order to diffuse any consequent complaints or protests or problems. If the land stays obsolete, then it is re-taken & given to someone else (possibly the original owner). In any case, the land is for the active (even if the land is planted with onions) & the lazy is better placed aside.

Every government has its own policy and it should be given ample scope to implement it. After some period success should be evaluated.  Today faster implementation is more important than the everlasting policy making. Government has its homework and current discussion among all stakeholders has provided very positive overtone to all exercise. Hope Monsoon session will pass the legislation coming from the committee.

Land can only be acquired after needs of food security are met.  Further, land should only be acquired from big and medium farmers, and not small and marginal farmers. Land being cultivated by landless on lease and share basis again should not be acquired.  Land should only be acquired after excess land identified under land reform has been implemented (with title deeds on women's names).  common land/grazing land, serve a wide purpose- and should be out of the purview of land acquisition.  As much as possible any employment generated through land acquisition. should go to vulnerable people of the local area

As long as the economic system is based on ownership of private property and its inheritance, the use of force in usurping someone's property by the State through the modification of law needs to be a rare exception, justified only on a clear demonstration of larger public good.  Most projects that need some one else's land (whether individually owned or commonly owned) should access it through purchase or lease or rental - not by compulsion.  For businesses / private projects the parties can negotiate a price and terms acceptable to both sides rather than bring in the land "acquisition" by the State.  Being forced to part with land (or any other property) violates property rights of the owner.  So even in the exceptional cases of demonstrated public good it is better to have informed consent, negotiation, and more than market-adequate payment to compensate for the "force" used - this will help to promote stability and acceptance of the acquisition rather than create fault-lines and lack of trust in the State (even when the governments are in place through democratic elections - no one yet has a good solution for electoral funding; business interests do fund election expenses of political parties).  Money can get used-up in one generation or less; land is an asset that can feed several generations over and over and over.  Forced re-location of people away from their land cannot be compensated by a low paid / low-skilled job for one person in the family in an alien environment.

So long as the economic system is based on private property,  while land acquisition will be necessary in specific cases, there law should contain due care to have established norms that define public good, why it is an exceptional situation, that no other land is feasible, ensure that a process of informed consent is followed, and compensation is more than basic market value.

This is not so critical in economic systems where all land is the property of the State.  Then people know that it is allowed to them only for current use, for specific purposes, they do not have deep emotional and economic ties, they do not invest long term in it,  and do not rely on it for inheritance/assets for the next generation.