Abstract: As the capital cities of Australia move from the initial urbanization to a re-urbanisation phase, the impact on residents resulting from changes in use or the intensification of existing uses in compulsory acquisition cases, brings into question the adequacy of the current principle of compensation. This paper examines the expanding purposes for which land is compulsorily acquired in Australia, and the evolving complexities in providing parity of value to dispossessed parties. Cases are examined in identifying the emerging purposes for land is acquired and a survey is used in exploring the impact of the types of acquisitions which encompass the partial and total acquisition of land. This provides a basis for establishing a framework which better supports the option for the introduction of the principle of reinstatement as a future principle. It further asks whether expanding the existing items of disturbance (costs associated with relocating) and solatium (compensation for non-financial loss) is an alternative to improving options for reinstating dispossessed owners. The primary contribution made is through the development of a framework which expands options for reinstatement in place of market value in some circumstances and defines the factors to be included under the heads of disturbance and solatium. It further builds a case for a share in the uplift in value resulting from the acquisition of land in the cases of economic development.