Clearly State asserts its right under “Eminent Domain” theory. The problem arises when the process is take over by “Capture” theory where a private purpose is substituted for public (or government purpose).

Can we stick to the  “greatest good for the greatest number” approach by asking the most vulnerable to give up their livelihood and way of life for the benefit of those who “have”? Does this violates Fundamental Economic Right?

The argument for economic development of a region glosses over the following:

•  People loosing their land are those loosing  their most important (and probably their only) asset
• They have no other skills to interact and enjoy the real fruits of the proposed development activity (does a few lowest level jobs do justice?)
• Compensation in cash and a small parcel of land to build a home, does not work. Remember they have no skills for handling money (as shown in umpteen examples in the past)

Does this mean that state should refrain from taking over private land for development purposes? 

Absolutly not!

But are we, as a society, prepared for:

• Agreeing to loose some priviledge of our own if, economically the lowest rung is forced to hand over their most important asset?
• Embarking on a plan to take care of the current and the next generation? Those who are going to benefit from the project should enable and empower displaced persons to derive benefit from the project. This benefit could be in the form of imparting education, training, and employment, all long term initiatives for sustained growth
• Treat the displaced people as real stakeholders in the project 

This requires a major shift in the policy. Will this be expensive? Who said development is cheap!

However if you consider the delay in the project implementation due to local protests, cost overruns, and the damage the "cash only" approach has done to the social fabric, this view may well be far less expensive and more sustainable.