India’s accelerated urbanisation has intensified conflicts between private land interests and environmental protection in infrastructure, housing, and industrial development, particularly within wetlands, floodplains, forest margins, coastal zones, and other ecologically sensitive areas. This study examines the constitutional balance between property rights under Article 300A and environmental obligations flowing from Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India. Adopting a doctrinal and analytical methodology, it analyses the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006, the Water and Air pollution-control statutes, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, representative town-planning laws, and relevant judicial precedents. Particular attention is given to the Supreme Court’s and the National Green Tribunal’s application of sustainable development, the precautionary principle, the polluter-pays principle, and the public trust doctrine in resolving land-use conflicts. The study finds that, although the legal framework recognises both ecological protection and procedural safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of property, its implementation is weakened by fragmented institutional authority, project-specific rather than strategic assessment, inadequate post-clearance monitoring, and limited meaningful public participation. It further compares India’s framework with the European Union’s Strategic Environmental Assessment model, the United States’ National Environmental Policy Act process, Singapore’s integrated statutory land-use planning, and Australia’s environmental assessment and biodiversity-protection regime. Drawing on these approaches, the article proposes statutory adoption of strategic environmental assessment for metropolitan and regional plans; concurrent integration of environmental clearances, ecological inventories, and master-plan zoning; accessible local-language consultation; independent lifecycle compliance audits supported by digital and GIS-based monitoring; strengthened municipal capacity; and a principled compensation framework where environmental restrictions substantially impair land use. The study argues that sustainable and equitable urban development requires coordinated governance that treats ecological resilience as integral, rather than incidental, to constitutionally lawful development.