As far as I know 'Fixed Capital' includes things which don't deteriorate or get used up upto a long, e.g. tools, machinery and building etc. My question is that since Land fulfills this criteria, why is it not considered as a Fixed Capital?
The distinction between land and physical capital is based on some of their economic properties, particularly relating to investment: whether it can be reproduced or not; whether it has a finite lifetime (compared to the human lifetime).
Almost all land is not reproducible, and does not have a finite lifetime.
Physical capital is reproducible, and does have a finite lifetime.
Hence, almost all land is not physical capital.
There are corner cases, where land is reproducible, and may appear and then disappear again in less than a handful of human lifetimes: in those very rare cases, that particular land behaves more like physical capital rather than how land generally behaves, and so could be classed as such.
Land itself is not included in the statistical concept of fixed capital, even though it is a fixed asset. The main reason is that land is not regarded as a product (a reproducible good).
But the value of land improvements is included in the statistical concept of fixed capital, being regarded as the creation of value-added through production.
A little bit of research could have spared this question as I found it on wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_capital
What everyone else has said is true when viewed from an economics standpoint. However, accountants see land as fixed capital with its value being the total amount invested. They (accountants) define any resource that is effectively static for a long period of time to be fixed capital.