This does not seem sound and reasonable. Yes, India has been civilized for 5000 years, with the result that it's very densely populated; but "very densely populated" is only 418 people per square kilometer, less than twice Germany's 232.
53% of India's land area is arable land: 790 people per square kilometer of arable land, or 1270 square meters of arable land per person. I feel like 100 square meters of factory area per person is more than adequate, which would decrease the arable land by some 8% if you built it all on previously cultivated fields, rather than mountains or forests or deserts (or polders!); but that assumes you're employing the entire population in the factories.
Some factories do have lower density than that; for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI was 370 acres (150 hectares in modern units) and employed 5500 people at its closure in 02006. This works out to 270 square meters per worker. But now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Fremont_Factory occupies that space and some additional (175 hectares total) and employs 22000 people, 80 square meters per person, despite extensive automation.
If some of those factories are producing fertilizers, tractors, irrigation equipment, and food products, converting some fields into factories might actually increase your agricultural production rather than decreasing it. Germany harvests 7 tonnes of cereals per hectare that's planted in cereals; India, despite being tropical, harvests only 3.3: https://tradingeconomics.com/india/cereal-yield-kg-per-hecta...
Allocating scarce resources like land by means of capitalism is maybe not ideal unless you can make more of them (polders!), but it does seem to work better than allocating them by bureaucracy and laws.