ORDER : Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against the judgments of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby the appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh in which U.P. State Sugar Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') got itself impleaded as co-appellant, against the order passed by IV Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Reference Court') for payment of enhanced compensation to the respondents were dismissed. 3. The State Government acquired the respondents' land in 1990 for expansion of the Bulandshahr unit of the Corporation. After completion of the acquisition proceedings, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated 25.10.1991 and fixed market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per bigha (pucca). 4. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, they filed applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') for grant of enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/- to Rs. 700/- per square yard. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced by them including the sale instance dated 3.2.1990 vide which land was sold at the rate of Rs. 7 lacs per bigha (pucca), the Reference Court held that the landowners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 6 lacs per bigha with other statutory benefits. The operative portion of order dated 23.3.1992 passed by the Reference Court reads as under: "A. References number 25 of 92, 55 of 92, 53 of 92, 56 of 92, 42 of 92, 43 of 92, 44 of 92, 45 of 92, 46 of 92, 47 of 92, 48 of 92, 49 of 92, 50 of 92, 51 of 92, 52 of 92 are allowed and the Award dated 25/10/91 is modified. B. All the applicants in the reference are entitled to get the compensation with respect to the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 6,00,000/- per bigha. C. The applicants in the reference are entitled to get the solatium at the rate of Rs. 30% on the increased amount of compensation. D. The applicants in the reference are entitled to get additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the date of publication of the notification getting compensation under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act. 30% on the increased amount of compensation. D. The applicants in the reference are entitled to get additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the date of publication of the notification getting compensation under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act. E. The applicants in the reference are entitled to get the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation for one year with effect from the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 26/5/90 and they shall be entitled to get the interest at the rate of 15% per annum on increased amount of compensation after the period of one year up-to the date of making payment. F. The amount of compensation be calculated at aforesaid rate and payment be made within the period of two months." 5. The petitions filed by the Corporation for review of the aforementioned order were dismissed by the Reference Court on the ground of lack of locus standi. 6. The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the order of the Reference Court by filing appeals under Section 54 of the Act, but could not convince the High Court to reduce the amount of compensation. 7. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for appellant - M/s. Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd., which has been substituted in place of the Corporation by a separate order passed today, submitted that even though in the special leave petitions, the Corporation has questioned the impugned judgments mainly on the ground that the Reference Court could not have enhanced the compensation without issuing notice to it as per requirement of Section 50(2) of the Act, he does not want to press the same because the matter is more than 21 years old counted from the date of the issue of notification under Section 4(1) and no useful purpose will be served by remitting the matter to the Reference Court for determination of the compensation afresh. Learned senior counsel then argued that the Reference Court and the High Court committed serious error by not making appropriate deduction towards the development cost ignoring that the land had been acquired for expansion of the sugar factory and substantial amount was required to be spent for making it useful for the purpose of acquisition. Learned senior counsel then argued that the Reference Court and the High Court committed serious error by not making appropriate deduction towards the development cost ignoring that the land had been acquired for expansion of the sugar factory and substantial amount was required to be spent for making it useful for the purpose of acquisition. Shri Dwivedi referred to the judgment of this Court in Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568 and submitted that ends of justice will be served if deduction at the rate of 10% is allowed towards the development cost. 8. Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents made efforts to persuade us to remand the cases to the Reference Court for fresh determination of the amount of compensation by arguing that the Reference Court and the High Court committed an error in fixing market value of the acquired land by treating it to be agricultural land ignoring the evidence produced by the landowners that the same had already been urbanized. 9. We shall first consider the question whether the Reference Court or for that reason the High Court should have made appropriate deduction towards the development cost. In cases involving the acquisition of land which is proposed to be utilised for the purpose of development, the Courts have generally approved deduction of ?rd of market value towards development cost. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354 , the Court held: "............It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally ?rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than ?rd and in some cases less than ?rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose." (emphasis supplied) 10. The rule of ?rd deduction was reiterated in Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525 , V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer (2003) 12 SCC 642, H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority (2004) 10 SCC 745 . The rule of ?rd deduction was reiterated in Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525 , V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer (2003) 12 SCC 642, H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority (2004) 10 SCC 745 . In Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 , the Court indicated that percentage of deduction for development to be made for arriving at market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land with potential for development can vary between 20 and 75 per cent of the price of developed plots and observed: "The 'deduction for development' consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. ... Therefore the deduction for the 'development factor' to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be for more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is also well known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher overheads and expenditure." 11. In Subh Ram v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 444 , this Court held as under: "Deduction of "development cost" is the concept used to derive the "wholesale price" of a large undeveloped land with reference to the "retail price" of a small developed plot. The difference between the value of a small developed plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the "development cost". Two factors have a bearing on the quantum (or percentage) of deduction in the "retail price" as development cost. Firstly, the percentage of deduction is decided with reference to the extent and nature of development of the area/layout in which the small developed plot is situated. Secondly, the condition of the acquired land as on the date of preliminary notification, whether it was undeveloped, or partly developed, is considered and appropriate adjustment is made in the percentage of deduction to take note of the developed status of the acquired land. Secondly, the condition of the acquired land as on the date of preliminary notification, whether it was undeveloped, or partly developed, is considered and appropriate adjustment is made in the percentage of deduction to take note of the developed status of the acquired land. The percentage of deduction (development cost factor) will be applied fully where the acquired land has no development. But where the acquired land can be considered to be partly developed (say for example, having good road access or having the amenity of electricity, water, etc.) then the development cost (that is, percentage of deduction) will be modulated with reference to the extent of development of the acquired land as on the date of acquisition. But under no circumstances, will the future use or purpose of acquisition play a role in determining the percentage of deduction towards development cost." (emphasis supplied) 12. However, in Atma Singh's case, the Court, while considering challenge to the fixation of market value of land acquired for a sugar factory, held that deduction of 10% would be reasonable. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment, which contain the reasons for this conclusion are reproduced below: "15. The question to be considered is whether in the present case those factors exist which warrant a deduction by way of allowance from the price exhibited by the exemplars of small plots which have been filed by the parties. The land has not been acquired for a housing colony or Government office or an institution. The land has been acquired for setting up a sugar factory. The factory would produce goods worth many crores in a year. A sugar factory apart from producing sugar also produces many by-products in the same process. One of the by-products is molasses, which is produced in huge quantity. Earlier, it had no utility and its disposal used to be a big problem. But now molasses is used for production of alcohol and ethanol which yield lot of revenue. Another by-product begasse is now used for generation of power and press mud is utilised in manure. Therefore, the profit from a sugar factory is substantial. Moreover, it is not confined to one year but will accrue every year so long as the factory runs. A housing board does not run on business lines. Another by-product begasse is now used for generation of power and press mud is utilised in manure. Therefore, the profit from a sugar factory is substantial. Moreover, it is not confined to one year but will accrue every year so long as the factory runs. A housing board does not run on business lines. Once plots are carved out after acquisition of land and are sold to public, there is no scope for earning any money in future. An industry established on acquired land, if run efficiently, earns money or makes profit every year. The return from the land acquired for the purpose of housing colony, or offices, or institution cannot even remotely be compared with the land which has been acquired for the purpose of setting up a factory or industry. After all the factory cannot be set up without land and if such land is giving substantial return, there is no justification for making any deduction from the price exhibited by the exemplars even if they are of small plots. It is possible that a part of the acquired land might be used for construction of residential colony for the staff working in the factory. Nevertheless, where the remaining part of the acquired land is contributing to production of goods yielding good profit, it would not be proper to make a deduction in the price of land shown by the exemplars of small plots as the reasons for doing so assigned in various decisions of this Court are not applicable in the case under consideration. 16. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that a deduction of 10% from the market value of the land, which has been arrived at by the High Court would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the market value of the acquired land for the purpose of payment of compensation to the landowners has to be assessed at Rs. 1,08,000 per acre." 13. In our view, the ratio of Atma Singh's case deserves to be invoked in these appeals because the respondents' land was acquired for a sugar factory. In other words, it will be appropriate to allow a deduction of 10% by way of development charges. 14. 1,08,000 per acre." 13. In our view, the ratio of Atma Singh's case deserves to be invoked in these appeals because the respondents' land was acquired for a sugar factory. In other words, it will be appropriate to allow a deduction of 10% by way of development charges. 14. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the matter should be remanded to the Reference Court for fresh determination of the compensation cannot be entertained because the respondents did not challenge the order of the Reference Court by filing appeals under Section 54 of the Act or preferred cross objections in the appeals filed by State of U.P. 15. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgments are modified and it is directed that there shall be a deduction of 10% from the compensation determined by the Reference Court, which has been upheld by the High Court. 16. With a view to obviate intervention of the middleman in the matter of payment of compensation to the land owners, we deem it proper to issue the following directions: (i) Within a period of three months from today, the appellant shall pay to the respondents the amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court. While doing so, the appellant shall be entitled to deduct the amount already paid pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. (ii) The Special Land Acquisition Officer shall depute an officer not below the rank of Tehsildar of the area, who shall contact the landowners and/or legal representatives and apprise them about their entitlement to receive the balance amount of compensation with other statutory benefits. (iii) The concerned officer shall ask the landowners and/or legal representatives to open bank accounts if they have already not done so. This exercise must be completed within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv) The concerned officer shall supply the list of landowners and/or their legal representatives along with their bank account numbers to the Special Land Acquisition Officer within 15 days of the completion of exercise in terms of direction No.(ii). (v) Within next fifteen days, the Special Land Acquisition Officer shall deposit the amount of compensation in the accounts of the landowners and/or legal representative in the form of cheques drawn on a nationalised/scheduled bank.