After recognising the main reasons to be hopeful about the new Land Acquisition Bill, this commentary critiques two significant structural problems in the proposed legislation: first, the definition of “public purpose”, especially the “informed consent” provision that has been included; second, the price setting mechanism, especially the possibility of an exponential escalation at the metropolitan edges and the creation of certain bizarre rural-urban boundaries. The article concludes by raising a basic question: If the State has been the problem in land acquisition, why is more of it the solution?