Is PM-KUSUM Component A worth it for my barren or fallow land near a substation?

Component A is a different proposition from the pump schemes. Instead of running your own irrigation, you put up a small ground mounted solar power plant on barren, fallow or uncultivated land and sell the generated power to the DISCOM at an agreed tariff, earning a steady income from land that was otherwise idle. It can suit a farmer who has spare land that is not good for cropping, especially close to a substation, because the practical viability depends heavily on proximity to the grid. The conditions that make or break it are: the land must be near enough to a substation or line that can absorb the power, since long connection distances raise cost and may not be allowed, the land should be reasonably level and free of disputes, and there is a capacity band the scheme works within. The plant can be set up by the landowner directly, or through a developer who leases your land, and the income comes either as power sale revenue or as lease rent depending on the model you choose. The cautions are real: it needs upfront investment or a developer arrangement, the tariff and the DISCOM's willingness to buy at that point on the grid are decided locally, and the return is a long term one, not a quick gain. So it can be worth it for genuinely barren land near the grid, but not for land you could profitably crop. Confirm the current Component A tariff, capacity rules and grid availability at your location with your state nodal agency and DISCOM before deciding.