JUDGMENT : These appeals preferred under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) emanate from judgment dated 26.04.2019 passed by the Reference Court. Since, common issues are involved in these appeals and the appeals arise from the same Judgment, these appeals were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. The facts necessary for decision of these appeals need mention, which are stated infra. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 2. First round of acquisition proceeding in respect of land in question commenced in 1964 i.e., 57 years ago. Father of the appellant in M.F.A.No.5511/2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant' for short) viz., one B.M.Appareddy was the owner of land measuring 6 acres 28 guntas of Sy.No.15/1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question' for short) situate at Beniganahalli Village, K.R.Puram, Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. On the death of aforesaid B.M. Appareddy, the land in question devolved on the appellants in M.F.A.No.5511/2019 and the appellant became absolute owner of the land in question. The land in question was needed for a public purpose namely extension of New Government Electrical Factory (NGEF). Thereupon a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in respect of land in question and subsequently a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 30.01.1965. 3. An award dated 21.12.1966 was passed in respect of the land in question, which was sought to be acquired for the purposes of NGEF. Though the lands were acquired for the purposes of extension of NGEF, however, same was not utilized for the aforesaid purpose and NGEF became a sick industry, pursuant to which the proceeding were initiated before the board for industrial and financial reconstruction. The Board recommended that NGEF be wound up by filing a winding up petition before the company court. Thereafter the Board initiated winding up proceeding against NGEF by filing a company petition No.154/2002 before this court. The appellant submitted several representations for restoration of land in question. However, the repeated representations of the appellant seeking withdrawal from the proceeding under the Act failed to evoke any response. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.41924/2003 before this court in which a direction was sought to consider the representations submitted by her. The appellant submitted several representations for restoration of land in question. However, the repeated representations of the appellant seeking withdrawal from the proceeding under the Act failed to evoke any response. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.41924/2003 before this court in which a direction was sought to consider the representations submitted by her. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this court by an order dated 28.11.2003 with the direction to the State Government to consider the representations dated 10.10.2000 and 13.10.2003 expeditiously. 4. The State Government by a Notification dated 28.02.2004 freezed the developmental activities in respect of certain lands which included 2,13,330 square meters of NGEF land, which was intended for acquisition for metro rail project. This court in company petition No.154/2002 by an order dated 03.08.2004 ordered winding up of the NGEF between the period from 27.9.2004 to 12.10.2004 and the assets of the NGEF were taken over by the Official Liquidator in association with secured creditors. The NGEF was considered to be the owner of land measuring 173.7 acres which included the lands of the appellant of Sy.No.15/1. The assets of NGEF were valued by TECSOK (a Government of Karnataka Undertaking) and a valuation report was submitted on 19.09.2005, to the company court in COP No.154/2002. This court by an order dated 18.10.2005 passed in aforesaid company petition permitted sale of assets of NGEF which included the land in question. 5. The Official Liquidator issued an advertisement on 03.11.2005 for sale of the lands. The land measuring 5.875 acres of the land in question was described in lot No.4 of the said advertisement. Sometime in November, 2005, two applications were filed before the company court by the Government of Karnataka seeking a stay of sale of assets and asking for revival by selling the lands of NGEF to Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). In the meanwhile, in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Official Liquidator, several bids were received. The Official Liquidator filed its report dated 22.12.2005 wherein it was mentioned that highest bidder for lot No.4 i.e., the land in question was one M/s Prestige Gardens Estates Private Limited, which had offered the price of 64.69 Crores in the year 2005 for land measuring 5.875 acres which comes to approximately 11.1 per acre. The Official Liquidator filed its report dated 22.12.2005 wherein it was mentioned that highest bidder for lot No.4 i.e., the land in question was one M/s Prestige Gardens Estates Private Limited, which had offered the price of 64.69 Crores in the year 2005 for land measuring 5.875 acres which comes to approximately 11.1 per acre. The company court by an order dated 22.12.2005 cancelled the sale of the lands of the company and further held that bid of M/s Prestige Gardens Estates Private Limited was on the lower side. It was decided to consider the scheme of revival of company. 6. The aforesaid M/s Prestige Gardens Estates Private Limited preferred an appeal before the Division bench of this court in which an order dated 22.12.2005 passed by the learned company judge was assailed. The Division bench of this court by an order dated 31.03.2007 held that question of acceptance of bid of M/s Prestige Gardens Estates Private Limited does not merit consideration on account of efflux of time and the amount offered for purchase of the land of NGEF is no longer relevant in terms of increase in price of the land. An adjoining land was also acquired for Metro Rail Project by issuance of Notifications dated 17.01.2006 and 08.01.2007 under Section 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIADB Act and a consent award dated 07.03.2008 was passed wherein compensation by mutual consent of the parties was determined at Rs.39,896/-per square meter, which comes to Rs.16.14 Crores per acre. Similarly, in respect of another adjoining land, which was acquired for Metro Rail Project by issuance of Notifications dated 17.01.2006 and 09.01.2007 issued under Section 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, were issued and a consent award was passed on 31.08.2008 by which market value was determined at Rs.15.93 Crores. 7. During the pendency of the company petition, a preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act was issued on 18.07.2008, wherein it was proposed to acquire 53 acres of land of NGEF, which included the land in question for purposes of Metro Rail Project and KSRTC. Thus, the second round of land acquisition proceeding commenced. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 28(1) of the Act was issued on 19.09.2008 in respect of other land in question measuring 6.05 acres for Metro Rail Project. Thus, the second round of land acquisition proceeding commenced. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 28(1) of the Act was issued on 19.09.2008 in respect of other land in question measuring 6.05 acres for Metro Rail Project. M/s Prestige Gardens Estates Private Limited approached the Supreme Court against the order dated 30.03.2007 passed by division bench of this court. The Supreme Court by an interim order dated 25.09.2008 inter alia held that the best available realizable value in respect of land in question will be the basis of valuation as on 31.03.2008. 8. The name of NGEF was shown as owner in respect of land bearing Sy.No.15/1 in the declaration dated 19.09.2008 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, therefore, the appellant filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.37547/2009 before this court, seeking a direction to the respondents to treat the appellant as owner of the land in question as well as to direct the respondents to pass an award in the name of the appellant viz., B.A.Indiramma. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this court by an order dated 17.04.2012 and it was inter alia held that the land in question was not acquired pursuant to the Notification dated 06.06.1964 and 31.01.1965 and the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of land in question was considered to be 19.09.2008. The appellant was held entitled to compensation from the aforesaid date. It was further held that award dated 21.12.1966 was never acted upon. The said order passed by learned Single Judge of this court has attained finality. 9. The appellant by a communication dated 23.04.2012 made a prayer to the Secretary, Revenue Department to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to pass afresh award in the name of the appellant in respect of land in question. The appellant by a communication dated 15.06.2012 which was addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, furnished the documents evidencing her title in respect of land measuring 6 acres 28 guntas of land in question. The appellant also filed a claim petition on 28.06.2012 in relation to the land in question. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 31.08.2012 and it was held that the appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,00,000/-per acre. Thereafter, a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued on 24.09.2012. The appellant also filed a claim petition on 28.06.2012 in relation to the land in question. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 31.08.2012 and it was held that the appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,00,000/-per acre. Thereafter, a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued on 24.09.2012. The appellant filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act and sought a reference to the Reference Court for determination of proper market value of the land. Thereupon, a reference was made on 18.01.2013. The Reference Court recorded the evidence of the parties and vide judgment dated 26.04.2019 determined the market value of the land at Rs.17,61,77,020/-per acre apart from various statutory sums and interests payable under the Act. The appellant (owner of the land) filed M.F.A.No.5511/2019, the BMRCL has filed M.F.A.No.6082/2019, whereas, the State Government has filed M.F.A.No.978/2021. In the aforesaid factual background, the said appeals have come up for our consideration. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF CORPORATION: 10. Learned Senior counsel for the Corporation viz., the appellant in M.F.A.No.6082/2019 and respondent in M.F.A.No.5511/2019 and M.F.A.No.978/2019 while taking us through the record as well as the relevant extract of the judgment of the Reference Court submitted that the controversy involved in this appeal is with regard to extent, nature and market value of the land. It is submitted that land measuring 6 acres 5 guntas was mentioned in the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, which includes three guntas of kharab land for which the appellant viz., the owner of the land is not entitled to any compensation. It is also submitted that only 6 acres and 5 guntas of land remain available for acquisition. In this connection, our attention has been invited to order dated 18.07.2017 passed in W.P.No.37547/2009 and it is argued that appellant viz., the land owner is entitled to claim compensation from the Corporation only in respect of land measuring 6 acres and 2 guntas, whereas, the Reference Court has incorrectly held that the owner of the land is entitled to compensation in respect of 6 acres and 15 guntas. It is submitted that out of the aforesaid land, 3 guntas is the land, is kharab land for which appellant is not entitled to any compensation. 11. It is submitted that out of the aforesaid land, 3 guntas is the land, is kharab land for which appellant is not entitled to any compensation. 11. It is also contended, while referring to Notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act that the land in question has been referred to as agricultural land. The petition filed by the appellant before the Reference Court has also been read over to us and it has been pointed out that existence of the approach road to the land in question has not been pleaded in the claim petition, PW1 viz., Manjunath, the Attorney for appellant in his cross-examination has admitted that the land is an agricultural land and no application for conversion has been filed. Our attention has also been invited to the evidence of PW2 viz., Somy Thomas, Consulting, Valuation and Advisory Executive Director of Cushman and Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd., in which it has been admitted by the aforesaid witness that there is no road abutting the land in question and neither there was a sewerage facility nor any facility of water supply. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid witness has admitted that there is no direct access to the road and the land in question is surrounded by all the sides by the lands. 12. It is further submitted that the Reference Court grossly erred in not making any deduction on the ground that the land has been utilized for parking purposes and ought to have appreciated that it was a large tract of land and therefore, the deduction should have been made for the development of the land as it was an agricultural land. It is also submitted that the Reference Court grossly erred in awarding escalation at 20% for preceding three years and should have confined the escalation between 10% to 12%. It is further submitted that the Reference Court grossly erred in placing reliance on M/s Prestige Gardens Estates Private Limited while determining the market value of the land and it ought to have been appreciated that element of competition in auction sale does not make the same a safe guide for assessment of the market value. It is further submitted that the Reference Court grossly erred in placing reliance on M/s Prestige Gardens Estates Private Limited while determining the market value of the land and it ought to have been appreciated that element of competition in auction sale does not make the same a safe guide for assessment of the market value. It is contended that the Reference Court ought to have appreciated that the real estate developers would not submit a bid for an agricultural land and the bidder submitted a bid on an assumption that the land in questioned belonged to NGEF and was a valid acquisition. It is also urged that the offer was made under a misconception which was not a genuine offer and the same has to be excluded from consideration. 13. It is further submitted that Ex.P21 and Ex.P22 are of no assistance to the appellant as Ex.P21 is a consent award and under Ex.P22, a building was sought to be acquired, which was situated 1 Km away from the land in question. Our attention has also been invited to Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 i.e., the sale deeds executed in respect of the lands in respect of the same village. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in 'MAJOR GENERAL KAPIL MEHRA AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER', (2015) 2 SCC 262 , 'RAJ KUMAR VS. HARYANA STATE AND OTHERS', (2007) 7 SCC 609 , 'KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD VS. LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER', (2011) 2 SCC 246 , 'VILUBEN JHALEJAR CONTRACTOR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT', (2005) 4 SCC 789 , 'U.P.AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD VS. JAINUL ISLAM', (1998) 2 SCC 467 , 'RANVIR SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA', (2005) 12 SCC 59, 'SPECIAL LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER, BANGALORE VS. V.T.VELU AND OTHERS', (1996) 2 SCC 538 , 'MUMTAZ ALI KHAN VS. THE COLLECTOR, RAMPUR, U.P. AND ORS.,' AIR 1996 ALL 71 , 'MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS', (2018) 13 SCC 96 . SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE GOVERNMENT: 14. Learned Additional Government Advocate in M.F.A.No.978/2021 and respondent in connected appeals viz., M.F.A.No.6082/2019 and M.F.A.No.5511/2019 submitted that in the declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Act the total extent of land which was mentioned was 6 acres and 5 guntas, out of which 3 guntas is a kharab land. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE GOVERNMENT: 14. Learned Additional Government Advocate in M.F.A.No.978/2021 and respondent in connected appeals viz., M.F.A.No.6082/2019 and M.F.A.No.5511/2019 submitted that in the declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Act the total extent of land which was mentioned was 6 acres and 5 guntas, out of which 3 guntas is a kharab land. Learned Additional Government Advocate has referred to a Circular dated 17.06.2003 issued by the revenue department and has pointed out that the owner of the land is not entitled to compensation in respect of kharab land. It is contended that owner of the land is entitled only to compensation in respect of land measuring 6 acres and 2 guntas. It is also contended that owner of the land is not entitled to escalation at the rate of 20% per annum. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF OWNER OF THE LAND: 15. Learned Senior counsel for the owner of the land viz., the appellant in M.F.A.No.5511/2019 and respondent in M.F.A.No.6082/2019 and M.F.A.No.978/2021 while referring to order dated 18.07.2017 in W.P.No.37547/2009 submitted that the owner of the land is entitled to compensation in respect of land measuring 6 acres and 15 guntas and owner of the land is not entitled to compensation in respect of land measuring 13 guntas of kharab land. It is also argued that in respect of adjoining land acquired for metro work project by the Corporation by virtue of consent awards dated 31.01.2008 and 07.03.2008, compensation was determined at Rs.15,94,10,977/-and Rs.16,15,12,059/-respectively. It is also contended that the acquisition of the land in this case has been initiated pursuant to Notification dated 18.07.2008 i.e., close to three years after the preliminary Notification dated 17.01.2006 in respect of acquisition of land involved in consent award Ex.P21. Therefore, the escalation should be computed for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008. It is further contended that lands under the consent award and the lands in question are situate at a distance of 900 meters which has been admitted in his cross-examination by RW1 viz., General Manager (Land Acquisition and Estate). It is also argued that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in relation to a large extent of land situate in an urban area is more as compared to small extent of land. It is also urged that fully developed area situate in an urban area would command a higher market price. It is also argued that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in relation to a large extent of land situate in an urban area is more as compared to small extent of land. It is also urged that fully developed area situate in an urban area would command a higher market price. It is also pointed out that lands in question were included of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) limits with effect from 16.01.2007 and fell within the Industrial zone, which is apparent from communication dated 25.06.2007 (Ex.P51), much prior to issuance of preliminary Notification dated 18.07.2008. Our attention has also been invited to the judgment of the Reference Court, wherein the Reference Court has noted that surrounding land is fully developed and can be used for software park, shopping malls etc and this court has also observed that lands are situate within the heart of the city. 16. It is also urged that once the land included within the BBMP limits and was classified in industrial zone, it ceases to retain nature of an agricultural land and the Reference Court grossly erred in taking the base value of the land at Rs.11,01,10,638/-. It ought to have appreciated that base price offered by M/s Prestige Gardens Estates Private Limited was offered in the year 2005 and this court in its judgment dated 20.03.2007 had held that the aforesaid price is no longer relevant on account of efflux of time and the aforesaid finding was affirmed by the Supreme Court. It is also urged that base price ought to have been treated to be as Rs.16 Crores and principles of deduction towards development cannot be justified when the land falls within the developed area. It is further submitted that land owner has already suffered for a period of 56 years. It is fairly submitted that the owner of the land is not entitled to compensation in respect of kharab land. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'UDHO DASS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS', (2010) 12 SCC 51 , 'DIGAMBER AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS', (2013) 14 SCC 406 , 'PRESTIGE GARDEN ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2007 SCC ONLINE KAR 151, 'GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VS. NGEF LIMITED', 2017 SCC ONLINE KAR 4817, 'ONGC LTD VS. RAMESHBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL', (2008) 14 SCC 745 , 'BHAGWATHULA SAMANNA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS', (2013) 14 SCC 406 , 'PRESTIGE GARDEN ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2007 SCC ONLINE KAR 151, 'GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VS. NGEF LIMITED', 2017 SCC ONLINE KAR 4817, 'ONGC LTD VS. RAMESHBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL', (2008) 14 SCC 745 , 'BHAGWATHULA SAMANNA VS. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR AND LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER', (1991) 4 SCC 506 , 'SRI RAM M.VIJAYALAKSHMAMMA RAO BAHADUR RANEE OF VUYYUR VS. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS', (1969) 1 MLJ (SC) 45, 'ANJANI MOLU DESSAI VS. STATE OF GOA', (2010) 13 SCC 710 , 'SATISH KUMAR GUPTA S. STATE OF HARYANA', (2017) 4 SCC 760 , ORDER PASSED IN M.F.A.NO.2436/2015, and ORDER PASSED IN W.P.No.NO.2062/2010. 17. Learned Senior counsel for the Corporation submitted by way of rejoinder in the form of written reply that counsel for owner of land submitted that only half of the order dated 18.07.2017 passed on I.A.No.1/2015 in W.P.No.37547/2009 has been extracted in written submissions. It is also pointed out that only land measuring 6 acres and 5 guntas of land was notified for acquisition and possession of the same was delivered to the Corporation. The owner of the land in the light of order dated 18.07.2017 passed on I.A.No.1/2015 cannot now contend that he is entitled to compensation in respect of land measuring 6 acres and 15 guntas. It is also urged that award of the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be treated as judgment of the Reference Court and material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be looked into unless the same are produced and proved. It is denied that RW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that lands covered under Ex.P21 and Ex.P22 are situate 900 meters away from the land in question and in fact, the property covered under Ex.P21 and Ex.P22 are the buildings situate adjacent to Old Madras Road. It is also contended that the value of small plots cannot be taken into consideration for determination of market value of large tract of land. It is also pointed out that land in question was included in industrial zone only in the master plan of 2015, whereas, the crucial rate for determining the value of land in question is 18.07.2008 and Ex.P51 does not indicate that the land in question fall within the industrial zone and the land in question is only an agricultural land. It is also pointed out that land in question was included in industrial zone only in the master plan of 2015, whereas, the crucial rate for determining the value of land in question is 18.07.2008 and Ex.P51 does not indicate that the land in question fall within the industrial zone and the land in question is only an agricultural land. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, POONA AND ORS.', (1988) 3 SCC 751 and 'BHAGWATHULA SAMANNA AND ORS. VS. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, VISHAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPALITY', (1991) 4 SCC 506 . LEGAL PRINCIPLES: 18. Before proceeding further, it is apt to refer to well settled principles with regard to determination of market value. One of the well recognized mode of determination of the market value of the land is the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor and market value is ordinarily the price, the property may fetch in open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by a special needs of a particular purchase. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy and a comparable instance has to be identified having regard to proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. [See: 'VILUBEN JHALEJAR CONTRACTOR (DEAD) BY LRS. VS STATE OF GUJARAT', (2005) 4 SCC 789 and 'NIRMAL SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA', (2015) 2 SCC 160 and 'U.P.AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD VS. ASHARAM (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS', CIVIL APPEAL NO.337/2021 DECIDED ON 23.03.2021]. The principle that while determining the market value of the land, the courts can apply reasonable amount of guess work to balance the equities to fix a just and fair market value in terms of parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act has been recognized in TRISHALA JAIN AND ANR. VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR.', (2011) 6 SCC 47 AND 'VITHAL RAO AND ANR. VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER', (2017) 8 SCC 558 . 19. In dealing with principles of assessment of compensation under the Act in NELSON FERNANDES AND ORS. VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SOUTH GOA AND ORS.', (2007) 9 SCC 447 , it has been held that purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration while assessing the question of compensation. 19. In dealing with principles of assessment of compensation under the Act in NELSON FERNANDES AND ORS. VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SOUTH GOA AND ORS.', (2007) 9 SCC 447 , it has been held that purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration while assessing the question of compensation. It has been further been held that where the purpose of acquisition is laying down a railway line, the question of deduction of development charges does not arise. It has further been held that market value of the land must relate to compensation awardable for such a land under Section 23(1) of the Act. The market value of the land cannot be its value with reference to actual use to which land is put on the date of Notification but with reference to the better use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in immediate or near future. An acquired land can be regarded as that which has a building potentiality, if such land although was used on the relevant date under Section 4(1) of the Act for agricultural purpose. [Also See: 'R.RAM REDDY AND ORS. VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD AND ORS. (1995) 2 SCC 305 , 'AVINASH DHAVAJI NAIK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA', (2009) 11 SCC 171 and 'LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VS. KARIGOWDA', (2010) 5 SCC 708 ]. 20. The Supreme Court while dealing with the issue with regard to escalation in 'KASHMIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA', (2014) 2 SCC 165 has held that normally an escalation of 12% per annum has to be applied while determining the market value. Similar view has been taken in 'MANOJ KUMAR & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA', (2018) 13 SCC 96 . The principles with regard to escalation have been enunciated in 'BUDH RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA', (2017) 12 SCC 714 . REASONS: 21. In the backdrop of well settled legal principles, we may advert to the facts of the case in hand. Admittedly, the land of the owner of the land has been acquired for Bangalore Metro Rail Project and has been utilized for parking space for Metro Rail Station. The dispute in this bunch of appeals is with regard to: (i) extent of land. (ii) nature of land. (iii) market value of the land. (i) Extent of land: 22. Admittedly, the land of the owner of the land has been acquired for Bangalore Metro Rail Project and has been utilized for parking space for Metro Rail Station. The dispute in this bunch of appeals is with regard to: (i) extent of land. (ii) nature of land. (iii) market value of the land. (i) Extent of land: 22. We deal with the issue of extent of land, which has been acquired for the benefit of the Corporation. A Notification dated 18.07.2008 was issued for acquisition of land in question. In the final Notification dated 19.09.2008, the extent of land was mentioned as 6 acres and 5 guntas. However, the award dated 31.08.2012, was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of land measuring 6 acres and 28 guntas, out of which land measuring 13 guntas was treated as kharab land. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has conceded that owner of the land is not claiming compensation in respect of land measuring 6 acres and 28 guntas but is entitled to claim compensation only in respect of 6 acres and 15 guntas. The question, which arises for our consideration is whether owner of the land is entitled to compensation in respect of land measuring 6 acres and 15 guntas or 6 acres and 2 guntas. 23. It is well settled that even an interim order passed inter parties, which has attained finality binds the parties. [See: 'RAVI S. NAIK VS. UNION OF INDIA', (1994) SUPP (2) SCC 641]. It is pertinent to note that in W.P.No.37547/2009, the owner of the land was the petitioner and Corporation as well as State Government were parties. In the aforesaid writ petition, admittedly, an order dated 18.07.2017 was passed subsequent to issuance of preliminary and final Notification and therefore, a presumption arises that learned Single Judge of this court has taken note of the preliminary as well as final Notification and has adjudicated the rights of the parties in relation to the extent of land. The said order, which has attained finality and binds the parties. The said order, which has attained finality and binds the parties. The relevant extract of the order reads as under: "It is an undisputed fact that petitioner has lost an extent of 6 acres 28 gutnas of land comprised in Sy.No.15/1 which was initially acquired by the State for the benefit of NGEF by issuing preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') on 06.06.1964 followed by final declaration dated 30.01.1965. Though an award was passed on 21.12.1966, award amount was not paid to petitioner/claimant. This court came to the conclusion that possession of the land was not taken till 19.04.1990. The Court also found that the land acquired was not utilized for the purpose of NGEF. Petitioner had made representation seeking restoration of the land in her favour. Prayer in the writ petition was to treat the petitioner as owner of 6 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.15/1 and to direct the respondents to pass award in the name of petitioner. It is also necessary to notice that in the meanwhile, the State Government had issued preliminary Notification dated 18.07.2008 followed by final declaration dated 19.09.2008 acquiring 6 acres 5 guntas of land comprised in the very same survey number for the benefit of 2nd respondent. Notification showed the notified katedar as NGEF. In that background, while filing this writ petition, petitioner had impleaded the Official Liquidator appointed for the NGEF apart from the State and the beneficiary viz., 2nd respondent /BMRCL. Having noticed the fact that petitioner had not been paid compensation for the land lost by her in an extent of 6 acres 28 guntas which consisted of 15 guntas of karab this court disposed of the writ petition directing respondents 1 to 3 to pass award in the name of petitioner afresh in respect of the land in Sy.No.15/1 measuring 6 acres 28 guntas. While issuing such a direction, the Court has made reference to the acquisition in favour of 2nd respondent through preliminary and final Notifications dated 18.07.2008 and 19.09.2008 respectively. While issuing such a direction, the Court has made reference to the acquisition in favour of 2nd respondent through preliminary and final Notifications dated 18.07.2008 and 19.09.2008 respectively. Merely because there is a reference made in the operative portion of the order to the Notifications dated 18.07.2008 and 19.09.2008 acquiring the land in favour of the 2nd respondent, the order cannot be construed as issuing direction to respondent s 1 to 3 to pay compensation only in respect of 6 acres 5 guntas of land and not in respect of the rest of the land which the petitioner had lost. Reference to the dates of preliminary and final Notification was for the purpose of effective date of determination of market value but the award was required to be passed in respect of 6 acres 28 guntas. This is the substance of the order passed by this court. Therefore, question of recording a finding that petitioner was entitled for compensation only in respect of 6 acres 5 guntas and there is typographical or clerical error in mentioning the measurement of the land does not arise. However, learned Senior counsel is right and justified in bringing to the notice of the court that so far as 2nd respondent BMRCL is concerned, as it has used only 6 acres 5 guntas of land for its purpose as was clear from preliminary and final Notifications, for the remaining extent of land over and above 6 acres 5 guntas 2nd respondent -BMRCL was not liable to pay compensation. This could be a matter of separate controversy. No clarification is necessary in this regard Suffice to observe that this contention and controversy raised by the 2nd respondent is kept open to be agitated before the appropriate forum including before the Reference Court where the matter is said to be pending on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 18(1) of the Act. With the above observations, I.A.1/2015 is disposed of declining to interfere in the matter. So far as the right of petitioner to receive compensation over and above the land cost by her, it cannot be disputed that she is entitled for compensation in respect of 6 acres 28 guntas of land by deducting karab portion. With the above observations, I.A.1/2015 is disposed of declining to interfere in the matter. So far as the right of petitioner to receive compensation over and above the land cost by her, it cannot be disputed that she is entitled for compensation in respect of 6 acres 28 guntas of land by deducting karab portion. But, the controversy as to who is liable to pay among respondents herein, for the remaining extent is left open to be agitated elsewhere and not in this particular proceeding. 24. Thus, it is evident that corporation has been held liable to pay amount of compensation in respect of land measuring 6 acres and 5 guntas as it has utilized only land measuring 6 acres and 5 guntas. Thus, in respect of remaining 8 guntas, the State Government is held liable to pay the amount of compensation. Therefore, we hold that the owner of the land is entitled to compensation in respect of land measuring 6 acres and 13 guntas excluding 15 guntas of kharab land. (ii) Nature of land: 25. Now we may deal with the issue relating to nature of land. The nature of the land has to be ascertained in the year of its acquisition i.e., 2008. The land in question was included in the limits of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike with effect from 16.01.2007. Similarly, by a communication dated 31.07.2017 issued by Bangalore Development Authority, the owner of the land has been informed that the land in question has been classified as an industrial land with effect from 25.06.2007. Thus, the land was included within the municipal limits and was classified as an industrial land much prior to issuance of preliminary Notification dated 18.07.2008. 26. Thus, the land in question in the year of acquisition i.e., 2008 had the potentiality of nonagricultural use and the same was also used for parking for metro rail project which also has to be taken into account for deciding nature of land. PW1-Manjunath V in the evidence has stated that land in question is situate in prime locality & is an urban land. It is has further been stated that land is situate very near to technological park, National Highway, ring road and metro station. PW1-Manjunath V in the evidence has stated that land in question is situate in prime locality & is an urban land. It is has further been stated that land is situate very near to technological park, National Highway, ring road and metro station. Aforesaid witness has also stated that 100 feet road formed around the land in question and it is situate opposite to Byapanahalli Railway Station and metro terminus and apartments and layout have come up surrounding the land in question. Aforesaid witness in cross-examination has admitted that till date of acquisition it was an agricultural land. PW2-Somy Thomas, the valuer has sated in examination in chief that access road to property is 60 feet wide and commercial buildings like RMA infinity, Bagmane Tech Park and RMZ infinity have been developed in the close vicinity of land. He has further deposed that land in question is well connected to major destinations and is situated at distances of 83, 180, 225 -330 meters from Byapanahalli Metro, ramp, metro terminus and Railway Station respectively. 27. However, in cross-examination, it is admitted that there is no road abutting subject property and there is neither direct access from Krishnaiahana palya main road nor water supply or sewerage facility even in year 2013. However, M.S.Chanappa Goudar General Manager (land acquisition) of the Corporation in his evidence has stated that approach road to land is 60 feet in width and is on south of land and abuts the same. It is also been admitted that distance between land and Byapanahalli Metro Station is only 1/2 km. and land in question is included within BBMP limits since 2007. It is also admitted by him that RMZ tech park is located 1 Km. away from acquired property and Ex.P21 is valuation report submitted by BMRCL to KIADB in respect of property situate at a distance of 1 km. away and land in question is classified as Industrial Zone in 2008. Thus from evidence of RW1-General Manager, Land Acquisition of the Corporation and attorney of the appellant Manjunath, it is evident that admittedly, the land in question is included within BBMP limits and was categorized as industrial land prior to issuance of preliminary and final Notification. The land in question is surrounded by commercial buildings and is located opposite Byapanahalli Metro station. The land in question has been acquired for parking of metro project. The land in question is surrounded by commercial buildings and is located opposite Byapanahalli Metro station. The land in question has been acquired for parking of metro project. Therefore, the land cannot be treated as agricultural land. For yet another reason, the land in question cannot be treated to be an agricultural land as the purpose of acquisition of the land is a relevant criteria for determination of nature of land. In the instant case, the land has been acquired for the purposes of parking in respect of Byapanahalli and is therefore nature of land is commercial. (iii) Market value of land: 28. This brings us to the question of market value of the land. The market value of land has to be assessed on the date of preliminary Notification. From the evidence on record, we find that Ex.P21 & Ex.P22 are relevant documentary evidence, which is closest in point of time to the preliminary Notification. The Reference Court erred in placing reliance solely on the bid of M/s Prestige Gardens Estates Private Limited and in making it the basis for determining the market value of the land in question. It ought to have been appreciated that aforesaid price was offered in 2005 and thereafter admittedly there has been escalation in the prices of lands. The proposition that the base price of the land has to be ascertained close to the date of preliminary Notification with reference to evidence on record cannot be disputed. In the instant case, Ex.P21 and Ex.P22 are the agreements dated 07.05.2008 and 17.05.2008 in respect of adjoining land acquired for Bangalore metro rail project, between owner of land and KIADB and on the basis of aforesaid agreements admittedly, consent awards were passed, which was accepted by Corporation. 29. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated in pursuance of preliminary Notification dated 17.01.2006, which led to consent award and the compensation with consent of the parties was determined at Rs.15,94,10,977/-. Thus, the aforesaid market value binds the Corporation as the land was required for the purposes of Bangalore Metro Rail Project and in the year 2006, the Corporation had agreed to pay compensation in respect of the land, which was similarly situate and was acquired for a similar purpose at the rate of Rs.15,94,10,977/-. Thus, the aforesaid price can safely be treated to be the base price. [See:' RAMAN BHAI PATEL VS. Thus, the aforesaid price can safely be treated to be the base price. [See:' RAMAN BHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT', (2018) 12 SCC 79 )].The Supreme Court by an order dated 25.09.2008, in Civil Appeal No.6061-6063/2008 has taken note of the fact that from November 2005 to March 2008, the prices of land are escalated. The land in question has potentiality for commercial use, therefore, safely escalation at the rate of 12% each year i.e., for the year 2007 and 2008 can be awarded on the aforesaid amount in view of law laid down in 'KASHMIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA', (2014) 2 SCC 165 and 'MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA', (2018) 13 SCC 96 . Thus, the market value of the land is assessed as Rs.19,99,65,129/-on the date of issuance of the preliminary Notification i.e., 18.07.2008. In the facts of the case, though the entire land has been utilized for parking of the metro rail project yet the Corporation must have been required to incur expenses for making it suitable for parking purposes i.e., by raising sheds for parking. Therefore, in the state of evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that 15% deduction from the amount of compensation towards development charges seems to be just and proper in the peculiar facts of the case. Thus, the owner of the land is held entitled to a compensation as follows: (i) The owner of the land is entitled to compensation in respect of land measuring 6 acres and 15 guntas at the rate of Rs.16,99,70,359/-(Rupees Sixteen Crores Ninety Nine Lakhs Seventy Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Nine) per acre, which is rounded off to Rs.17,00,00,000/-(Rupees Seventeen Crores) per acre. (ii) The owner of the land is held entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1A) of the Act from the date of preliminary Notification i.e., 18.07.2008 till the date of taking over the possession. (iii) The owner of the land is held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the amount of compensation under Section 24(2) of the Act. (iv) The owner of the land is held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from 18.07.2008 and thereafter, at the rate of 15% on the enhanced amount of compensation till realization. (iv) The owner of the land is held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from 18.07.2008 and thereafter, at the rate of 15% on the enhanced amount of compensation till realization. (v) To the aforesaid extent, the judgment dated 26.04.2019 passed by the Reference Court is modified. (vi) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to Reference Court for disbursement to the owner of the land. In the result, appeals are disposed of in terms indicated above.