Judgment Raj Kishore Prasad, J. 1. These two appeals, by the State of Bihar, arise out of two references under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. These proceedings were started for acquisition of land for construction of 3/11 K.W. Sub-station office workshop and staff quarters at village Madhopur No. 138 in the district of Patna. 3. First Appeal 343 arises out of Land Acquisition Case 267/101 of 1955 and is with regard to 0.40 acre of Bhith land in plot No. 1309. First Appeal 354 arises out of Land Acquisition Case 268/102 of 1955 and is with regard to 0.69 acre of Bhith land in plots Nos. 1314 and 1317. All these lands are admittedly Class I Bhith lands lying in village Madhopur. 4. In these appeals we are concerned only with the question of quantum of compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the lands under acquisition at the rate of Rs. 4000 per acre, but the learned Additional District Judge has valued them at the rate of Rs. 8000 per acre. 5. The only question raised, on behalf of the appellant, by Mr. B.D. Singh, Additional Standing Counsel, is that the learned Judge has acted in contravention of Sec.24, fifthly and sixthly, of the Land Acquisition Act, in taking into consideration the future potentialities of the lands in fixing their valuation. He, therefore, submitted that the valuation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was the correct basis on which compensation should have been allowed. 6. On the above question, there are several decisions, such as a decision of the Privy Council in Narayana Gajapatiraju V/s. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam, AIR 1939 PC 98 : 66 Ind App 104; a decision of the Bombay High Court in Government V/s. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1942 Bom 1.05: ILR (1942) Bom 403; a decision of the Madras High Court in Subramania Chettiar V/s. State of Madras, AIR 1953 Mad 943 ; and, a decision of this Court in Nagendra Nath Sahi V/s. Bhagwati Prasad Narayan Sahi, AIR 1946 Pat 447. 7. In the Privy Council case, AIR 1939 PC 98, above-mentioned, the words "market value of the land," occurring in Sec.23, First, of the Land Acquisition Act, have been explained. 7. In the Privy Council case, AIR 1939 PC 98, above-mentioned, the words "market value of the land," occurring in Sec.23, First, of the Land Acquisition Act, have been explained. Their Lordships have also laid down the method by which the increase accruing to the value of the land by reason of its potentialities or possibilities is to be measured. 8. The above case is the leading case on the point and has been relied upon in all the subsequent cases by the different High Courts. 9. A Division Bench of this Court, in Nagendra Nath Sahi, AIR 1946 Pat 447 (Supra), held that in determining the market value of land, the land cannot be valued with reference to its present use or with reference to the present enjoyment by the owner thereof and the potentiality of land is to be taken into consideration. 10. The above view has been taken also by the Madras High Court in Subramania Chettiar, AIR 1953 Mad 943 (Supra). In that case, a Division Bench of that Court held that in assessing the compensation, the Court may take into consideration not only the present purpose to which the land is applied, but also any other more beneficial purpose to which, in the course of events, it might, within a reasonable period, be applied, and, that the special adaptability of land for building purposes is an element to be taken into consideration in fixing the compensation but the potential value cannot be based on any speculation or conjecture as to the likelihood of the use to which the land may be put to at a distant future, although when there is a reasonable possibility of the land being used for purposes other than agriculture, those purposes could not be ignored in assessing its value. 11. The same view was. also taken by the Bombay High Court in Government, AIR 1942. Bom 105 (supra). 11. The same view was. also taken by the Bombay High Court in Government, AIR 1942. Bom 105 (supra). In that case, a Division Bench of that Court held that the market value of land is not to be ascertained merely by reference to the use to which it is being put at the time at which it has to be determined, namely, the date of the notification, but also by reference to its potentialities, that is, by reference to the uses to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the future, and, therefore, the owner of the land is entitled to have the value of such potentialities ascertained even when the only possible purchaser of the potentialities is the authority purchasing under powers enabling compulsory acquisition. 12. On a consideration of the above authorities, therefore, it is plain that the market value of the land sought to be acquired is to be ascertained not merely by reference to the use to which it is put at the date of the notification but also by reference to its potentialities, that is, by reference to the uses to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the future. 13. The learned Judge, although he has not referred to any decision, has kept in view the above principles, and, decided these cases in accordance with them. The learned Judge, therefore, has not committed any error of law in fixing the market value of the lands under acquisition. The point raised by Mr. Singh is, therefore, overruled. 14. The finding of the learned Judge is supported not only by his own local inspection dated 15-1-1958, but also by the Rate Report dated 7-7-1953 of the Land Acquisition Officer, Exhibit B (1). After a consideration of the evidence on the record and the other facts and circumstances, the learned Judge found that "having regard to the fertility of the land and its potential value for being used as building site an also having regard to its situation", the proper value of the land acquired should be fixed at Rs. 8,000.00 per acre. He has given good reasons for not accepting the sale deeds, Exhibits 1 to 1 (c), filed on behalf of the respondents, or the rate of compensation given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (O.P.W. 1), in his order-sheet. Exhibit A. 15. 8,000.00 per acre. He has given good reasons for not accepting the sale deeds, Exhibits 1 to 1 (c), filed on behalf of the respondents, or the rate of compensation given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (O.P.W. 1), in his order-sheet. Exhibit A. 15. For the reasons given above, I am unable to differ from the valuation fixed by the learned Additional District Judge of the lands under acquisition, in these two cases, and, therefore, I would affirm his decision that these lands should be valued at the rate of Rs. 8,000.00 per acre. 16. The result, therefore, is that both these appeals fail and are dismissed; . but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs of this Court in any of the cases.