Governments generally have the power to compulsorily acquire property, for example, the Australian Constitution give this power to Parliament in under section 51(xxxi):
- The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws;...
As to your question, it would depend on the particular law that enabled the ban and if that constituted acquisition of property. In general, it wouldn't because the property has not been "acquired" by the government - that is, while the owner has lost the right to frack, the government has not gained that right.
For Australia, the state of the law is given by JT INTERNATIONAL SA v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA; BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO AUSTRALASIA LIMITED & ORS v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA  HCA 43. From the summary of the judgement:
The Act imposes restrictions on the colour, shape and finish of retail packaging for tobacco products and restricts the use of trademarks on such packaging. The plaintiffs brought proceedings in the High Court challenging the validity of the Act, arguing that the Commonwealth acquired their intellectual property rights and goodwill otherwise than on just terms.
A majority of the Court held that to engage s 51(xxxi) an acquisition must involve the accrual to some person of a proprietary benefit or interest. Although the Act regulated the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights and imposed controls on the packaging and presentation of tobacco products, it did not confer a proprietary benefit or interest on the Commonwealth or any other
person. As a result, neither the Commonwealth nor any other person acquired any property and s 51(xxxi) was not engaged.
As an aside, Phillip Morris Asia Ltd also failed in an arbitration under a treaty between Hong Kong and Australia that would have required Australia to pay compensation for limiting their IP rights. If the treaty would have had that effect was not decided as the matter was deemed outside the protection of the treaty as an abuse of process:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the initiation of this arbitration constitutes an abuse of rights, as the corporate restructuring by which the Claimant acquired the Australian subsidiaries occurred at a time when there was a reasonable prospect that the dispute would materialise and as it was carried out for the principal, if not sole, purpose
of gaining Treaty protection. Accordingly, the claims raised in this arbitration are inadmissible and the Tribunal is precluded from exercising jurisdiction over this dispute.