Bimalendra Nath Maitra, J. - (1.) The disputed plot Nos. 508, 509, 516, 527, 735, 741, 745, 7644/9765 of mouza Gopinathpur within the District' of Burdwan were acquired under the 1 Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for the industrial development. The Land Acquisition Collector passed the award at the rate of Rs. 2,130.00 per acre for the Kanali lands, at Rs. 1,940.00 for Baid lands and at Rs. 940.00 for danga lands. The petitioner filed an objection stating that the valuation was too low and it should be calculated at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000.00 per acre. A reference was then made under section 18 of the Act. The State opposed the application. 2-3. The learned Additional District Judge considered the documentary evidence filed by the parties and assessed the valuation of the land in question at Rs. 80,000.00 per acre. Thereafter, he gave usual directions for payment of compensation and interest. Against this decision the present appeal has been filed by the State. 4. A cross-objection has been filed by the respondents and the original petitioner is dead. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the original notification was made under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 12.1.1955 and it is a valid one because all the necessary boundaries were given therein. Of course, there was a subsequent notification dated 20.8.1964, but the subsequent notification has no value for the earlier notification was valid in law because all the relevant boundaries of the acquired land were given therein. It has been further stated that the documentary evidence, Exts. 1 and 2 series, Kobalas, put in on behalf of the claimant cannot be accepted as they are not genuine transactions. The learned Additional District Judge rightly refused to place reliance on them. 6. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated that the learned Additional District Judge made a mistake in ignoring the sale deeds, Ext. 2 series. The sale price noted in this kobala from 1960 to 1964 clearly shows that the average market price of the land cannot be less than Rs. 2,56,000.00 per acre. The second notification is correct because the earlier notification of the 12th January, 1955, has no value because the numbers of the plots in question were not given therein. 7. The first question arises whether the first notification or the second notification will prevail. We have looked into the first notification dated 12.1.1955 published in the Extraordinary Calcutta Gazette. That notification is vague because the plots proposed to be acquired have not been mentioned and only the boundaries have been described. So that notification has to be ignored. The second notification is dated 20.8.1964 and was published in the Extraordinary Calcutta Gazette giving the numbers of the plots and quoting sections 4 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. We, therefore, hold that the second notification will prevail and not the first one. In this respect Bench cases of Jagendra v. State of West Bengal, reported in 75 CWN 737 and Sachilal v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1978 Cal 279 may be referred to. 8. Now, we shall have to come to the real value of the acquired lands. It is common ground that the purpose of acquisition was for industrial development. It will appear from the evidence of P. W. 1, Chintaharan Mondal, petitioner's son, that he has been looking after his father's affairs and mouza Gopinathpur, Birbhanpur, Bamunara and Khantpukur are adjacent mouzas and the disputed lands are in the neighbourhood covered by the kobatas filed by him. He, however, says G. T. Road is close to those lands and the lands are fit for Construction of building thereon. He also says that F. C. I. factory was installed there in 1964 and plot Nos. 508 to 745 are close to the G. T. Road and the nearest one is about 200 or 250 yards from the G. T. Road. He further says bald and kanali lands are agricultural ones. There is no dispute that both kanali and bald lands are agricultural lands. 9. It may be stated, that hone of the parties placed any reliance on the judgment, Exts. 3 and 4 series, and hence, the same are left out for Consideration. 10. The learned Advocate for the appellant contended that the potential value of the acquired land cannot be considered by the Court. But in the Privy Council's decision in the case of Atniaram B hag want Ghadgoy v. The Collector of Nagpur, reported in 49 CLJ 398 , it has been stated that the potential value has to be considered. The same observation was made in the case of Tribeni Debi v. Collector of Ranchi, AIR 1972 SC 1417 and Gopal Krishna v. Special Deputy Collector, AIR 1980 SC 1870 at page 1871 . The last case shows that in order to determine the value of the acquired land, the nature of the land, the present User, its capacity for higher potential value its precise location in relation to adjacent lands, the use to which the neighbouring land has been put, the impact of such use of the land acquired and other factors have to be considered by the Court. So, the potential value of the land has to be considered. 11. Of course, there are eight lands and Of them only one is located at some distance. In the latest case of Collector of Ranigarh v. Hari Singh, reported in AIR 1979 SC 472 at pages 473 and 474 it has been stated that irrespective of class of the land the potential value, of the land located in the municipal area is to be considered by the Court. So, it is of no importance that only one of the acquired lands is a danga land, namely, plot No. 7644. 12. There is another aspect of the case because out of the eight plots, plot No. 516 measures '04 decimals, plot No. 741 only .06 cents, plot No. 527 has an area of .4 Cents, the plot Nos. 509, 508, 735, 745 and 7644 have an area ofRs.25,'22,'21,'22 and '45 decimals respectively. Of course, in the case of Collector, Lakshntipiir v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, AIR 1971 SC 2015 , it has been stated that the Value of small land cannot be equated with that of a large one. At the same time, we are not unmindful of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Tea & Trading Company Ltd. v. Collector of Darrang, reported in AIR 1972 SC 1253 that gradual rise in price in the area under acquisition has to be considered by the Court. So, the mean of the different lands sold by the kobalas, Ext. 2 series, in or near the locality has to be considered. 13. The documentary evidence produced by the appellant is Ext. 2 series. 14. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the kobalas, Ext. 2 series, do not represent genuine transactions. Hence, the Court should not place any reliance thereon. Now, no such objection was taken in the trial court. The order-sheet shows that all the documents put in on behalf of the applicant were marked without objection and formal proof was dispensed with. So this point cannot be raised in the Appellate Court. This was slated in the cases of Bhagat Ram v. Khetu Ram, AIR 1929 PC 110 , P. C. Purusathama Reddiar v. S. Perumal, AIR 1972 SC 608 Ranibala v. Ram Krishna, reported in 73 CWN 751 and also in the case of Kanchanganga Co. Lid. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 Cal. 325 at page 327 . Hence, this frivolous objection cannot be entertained at this stage of the proceedings. 15. Ext. 2 is a certified copy of the kobala dated 21-12-1960. It shows that Rs.24 cents of land was sold for Rs. 6,500.00 and that an agricultural land. So the price works out at more than Rs. 2,66,000.00 per acre. But since out of eight disputed plots, three are small in size and five bigger in size, an average has to be taken. If the price noted in the judgments, Exts. 3 and 4 series, be seen, then the price will further increase. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the potential value of the land, we hold that the then market value of the acquired eight plots will not be less than Rs. 1,25,000.00 per acre. The submission made on behalf of the appellant is therefore, not accepted. This figure is assessed at by us because in the cross-objection, the rate of the acquired land has been stated Rs. 1,20,000.00 per acre. 16. The appeal is dismissed without costs and the cross-objection allowed with proportionate costs. The compensation of the acquired land is assessed at Rs. 1,20,000.00 per acre. The appellant will get additional compensation of fifteen per cent, and statutory interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum from the date of possession till the date of payment. 17. The Government will pay the aforesaid amount within three months from this date. The oral prayer for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been refused by us as in our opinion no substantial question of law of public importance arises in this case, which is decided on facts. Banerjee, J. - I agree.;