Why process credibility is becoming as important as compensation
- By Mayuri Singh and Nishant Saxena
India’s power transmission network has just crossed a significant threshold. With the national grid extending beyond five lakh circuit kilometres and further expansion underway to support non-fossil generation, the scale of what must now be executed is unprecedented.
Almost in parallel, the Ministry of Power has tightened the rules governing how transmission lines pass over private land. Not through a headline-grabbing overhaul, but through sharper process discipline in Right of Way (RoW) compensation and valuation.
These two developments are not coincidental. Together, they reveal a growing recognition that infrastructure at this scale cannot move on engineering and capital alone. It also moves on trust.
Right of Way as a Test of Institutional Credibility
Right of Way allows transmission lines to pass over private land without transferring ownership. In theory, this limits disruption. In practice, it alters land use, affects productivity, and imposes long-term constraints on how land can be used.
For many years, compensation for this impact existed, but it lacked consistency. More importantly, the process by which compensation was assessed often felt distant and uneven. Valuations varied sharply. Decisions took time. Explanations were limited.
Over time, this created a credibility gap. Landowners did not necessarily oppose transmission projects. They questioned the system that determined how their impact was recognised.
That distinction matters more than it appears.
A Gradual Reframing of Compensation
Recent changes in the Right of Way framework reflect an effort to address this credibility gap in stages.
The first step was economic recognition. Compensation was linked more closely to the market value of land, acknowledging that transmission infrastructure creates real and lasting impact. This signalled a shift away from viewing Right of Way as a procedural inconvenience toward treating it as a legitimate project cost.
The second step focused on structure. Market-based valuation mechanisms were introduced to professionalise assessments and reduce arbitrary outcomes.
Yet experience showed that structure alone was not enough. Delays in appointing valuers and finalising assessments became a new source of friction. Uncertainty persisted. For landowners, waiting often felt indistinguishable from disregard.
At this point, the issue was no longer about the quantum of compensation. It was about confidence in the process itself.
Process Discipline as a Communication Act
The most recent refinements to the RoW framework address this challenge directly.
Greater emphasis has been placed on recognised professional valuation, defined timelines, and predictable resolution of valuation differences. Discretion has been narrowed. Decision-making has been standardised.
Clear rules do more than speed up decisions. They shape perception. When valuation methods are consistent, timelines are enforced, and discretion is visibly limited, the system begins to speak for itself.
It tells landowners that outcomes may vary, but the process will not. That message, repeated across projects and geographies, is how institutional trust accumulates.
This is beyond administrative tightening. It is governance communicating through design.
Transmission at Scale and the Cost of Distrust
India’s transmission network has expanded rapidly in recent years, and it must continue to do so to support non-fossil generation targets. Each additional circuit kilometre increases the number of stakeholders involved, the diversity of land categories affected, and the complexity of local dynamics.
At this scale, even small pockets of resistance can disrupt timelines and inflate costs. More significantly, they can erode the legitimacy of the broader energy transition.
Right of Way reform, therefore, serves a larger purpose. It reflects an understanding that infrastructure expansion cannot rely on authority alone. It must be accompanied by systems that people find credible, even when outcomes are inconvenient.
Reading the Signal Behind the Rules
The evolution of RoW guidelines points to a maturing approach to governance in the power sector. The emphasis is shifting from resolving disputes after they arise to designing processes that prevent mistrust from taking root.
This shift suggests a deeper recognition. Installed capacity and circuit length may measure progress, but institutional trust determines whether progress sustains itself.
Transmission lines are built with steel and concrete. Their acceptance is built through clarity, consistency, and confidence in the system behind them.
Closing Reflection
As India’s grid expands into increasingly complex social and economic terrain, the central question will no longer be whether transmission can be built. It will be whether it can be built without friction becoming the default condition.
Right of Way reform offers an emerging answer. One that treats fairness not as an outcome to be negotiated, but as a system to be demonstrated. In infrastructure, that distinction defines whether progress advances quietly or arrives burdened by resistance.
Also read:
After Scarcity, India’s Power Sector Has Entered Its Trust Phase
Fix the Message, Fix the Grid: How Strategic Comms Can Clear RoW Roadblocks
No responses yet