JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - This appeal arises from proceedings for acquisition of land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894. The dispute in the present case relates to plot No. 42 of village Rouza, Pargana and Tahsil Fatehpur district Barabanki. 2. On 3-10-1972 the State Government issued notification under Section 4 of the above Act. This notification contained several plots which were sought to be acquired. Out of these plots there was plot No. 42 approximate area of which was indicated as 7 biswas and 15 biswansis. The notification also mentioned that the case being one of urgency the provisions of Section 17 of the Act had been applied to the acquisition in question. Thereafter on 1-11-1972 notification was issued by the State Government under Section 6 of the Act. The plots mentioned in the notification under Section 4 were repeated in this notification. Plot No. 42 was also repeated with the -same area. The only modification was that while in notification under Section 4 the area of 7 biswas and 15 biswansis had "been indicated to be the approximate area the notification under Section 6-did not contain any word to indicate that the area was approximate. In the notification under Section 4 the Hindi word 'Lagbhag had been used before the word 'Chhetraphal. 'Lagbhag means approximate and 'Chhetraphal means area. Under the notification under Section 6 the Collector was authorised to take possession after the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of notice under Section 9. In the usual course the Collector took possession of the land which was proposed to be acquired. Thereafter the Collector made an award in respect of the compensation to be awarded to the claimants in lieu of the land acquired. The amount of compensation determined in favour of the respondent was Rs. 640.01. The respondent was dissatisfied with the award tS-d he accordingly moved an application before the Collector for making reference to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In this reference the contention of the respondent was that the actual area of the land which had been taken possession of was 16 biswas and 6 biswansis and not 7 biswas and 15 biswansis as mentioned in the notification and, therefore, he was entitled to compensation in respect of the former area instead of the latter area. In this reference the contention of the respondent was that the actual area of the land which had been taken possession of was 16 biswas and 6 biswansis and not 7 biswas and 15 biswansis as mentioned in the notification and, therefore, he was entitled to compensation in respect of the former area instead of the latter area. His case was that the Collector had awarded compensation to him in respect of the latter area which was less than the area actually taken possession of. 'The averments with regard to the area had been made in sub-para (a) of para 1 of the application under Section 18 of the Act. To this application written statement was filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh before the learned District Judge, Barabanki. The averments made in sub-para (a) of para 1 of the application under Section 18 were simply denied. No case in addition to denial was set up on behalf -of the State. Under additional pleas it was stated that the amount claimed by the respondent was exorbitant and that he was not entitled to the same. The claim was also alleged to be barred by limitation. It was also stated that the amount awarded by the Compensation Officer was just having regard to the value of the property acquired. A perusal of this written statement would indicate that on behalf of the State it was not specifically stated that the Collector had taken possession over an area which was in excess of the area notified under Section 6 and, therefore, the action of the Collector was illegal and the only remedy available to the respondent was to file suit in the ordinary course instead of claiming compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The State also did not say that its possession over any portion of the land was illegal and that it was prepared to vacate the same. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned District Judge framed the following issues: - (a) What is the correct area of the land of the objector, Ram Autar, which has been acquired and over which possession has been taken? (b) What is the fair amount of the compensation to which Ram Autar is entitled? 4. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned District Judge framed the following issues: - (a) What is the correct area of the land of the objector, Ram Autar, which has been acquired and over which possession has been taken? (b) What is the fair amount of the compensation to which Ram Autar is entitled? 4. The learned District Judge had issued commission to Sri Hausal Bux Singh advocate to report about the actual area which had been taken possession of by the Collector. In his report dated 22-11-1975 he reported that the total area of plot No. 42 falling in the Canal Command came to 17 biswas and 10 biswansis. Against this report no objection was filed on behalf of the State. In other words the State admitted that it was in possession of 17 biswas and 10 biswansis of plot No. 42 which admittedly belonged to the respondent. The learned District Judge accordingly held that the Collector had taken possession of 17 biswas and 10 biswansis of respondents plot No. 42. He further observed that it appeared that through some error the area of plot No. 42 had been mentioned in the notification as 7 biswas and 15 biswansis. On this reasoning he came to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to compensation for 17 biswas and 10 biswansis. For this area he came to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 13.27 per biswansi. 17 biswas and 10 biswansis were equivalent to 350 biswansis. Accordingly the learned District Judge found that the respondent was entitled to Rs. 4644.50 as compensation for 350 biswansis of plot No. 42 and he ordered accordingly. 5. Against the above judgment of the learned District Judge the State has preferred this appeal. The main argument of the learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant was that the Collector could not acquire and take possession over any area in excess of that notified under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and therefore, the Collector committed act of trespass when he took possession over 17 biswas and 10 biswansis intead of 7 biswas and 15 biswansis and for this act of trespass only mesne profits could be claimed and not compensation under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. In support of this contention the learned counsel placed reliance upon several authorities. The first authority relied upon by the learned counsel is of the Calcutta High. Court in the case of Harish Chunder Neogy v. Secretary of State for India ((1907) 11 Cal WN 875). In this case the dispute related to a road site. The Municipal Corporation of Calcutta for whom land had been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act claimed that the Collector had delivered possession to it over this road site. The claimant claimed it as his land and the road as a Basti land for his tenants only. The Court found that this land did not form part of the land notified for acquisition. The Court, therefore, refused to value this land observing that the Collector and the Special Judge exercised limited jurisdiction under the Act and that if the Collector enters into or delivers possession over a land which is not comprised in the notification he commits an act of trespass on private land for which he is liable under the ordinary law of the land. This judgment by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court fully supports the contention of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. If I accept the reasoning adopted by the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court, the appeal preferred by the State will have to be allowed. For reason to be indicated hereinafter I do not fully subscribe to the view taken by the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court. 6. Another decision of the same High Court relied upon by the learned counsel is reported in AIR 1943 Cal 122 (Province of Bengal v. Maulvi Md. Yusuf). This is also a Division Bench judgment but it is of no assistance to the learned counsel for the State. This judgment only lays-down principles for identifying the land covered by a document when the document consists of several parts and the description of the land is not consistent in all the parts of the document. This-judgment does not throw any light upon, the controversy involved in the present; case. 7. The case of Corporation of Calcutta v. Omeda Khatun Bewa ( AIR 1956 Cal 122 ) also does not deal with the controversy involved in the case .on hand. This-judgment does not throw any light upon, the controversy involved in the present; case. 7. The case of Corporation of Calcutta v. Omeda Khatun Bewa ( AIR 1956 Cal 122 ) also does not deal with the controversy involved in the case .on hand. This judgment is authority only for the proposition that subject to the following: two conditions the ordinary rule is that; there can be no piecemeal acquisition in-respect of land for which declaration has been made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act; firstly where the land in respect of which the declaration under Section 6 has been made is under the-ownership of different individuals and' secondly where the acquisition proceeding in respect of the declared land, whether under the ownership of a single or different individuals, is held up by circumstances over which the acquiring; authority has no control, for example, by an injunction or the decision of a superior court and that injunction is subsequently dissolved or the decision overruled. 8. In this case notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 29-7-1927. This notification was in respect of 11 cottas of land belonging to a certain individual. Thereafter only 4 cottas 4 chittaks and; 20 sq. feet were acquired and award was also made in respect of this area only on 7-3-1932. In 1952 proceedings were started: for acquiring the remaining area out of ' the area notified under Section 6. The question that arose on these facts before the learned Judges of the Calcutta High-Court was whether piecemeal acquisition was possible and this question was answered in the manner indicated hereinabove. 9. In Bhagwan Das Nagindas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer ((1915) 28 Ind Cas 489) (Bom) portion of a land was notified for acquisition. The owners exercising option under Section 49 (1) informed the Collector that they desired the whole of the land to be acquired instead of part. The Collector accepted the owners option and proceeded to acquire the' entire land without getting the entire land notified by the State Government. He gave his award which was objected to by the owners who alleged inter alia that the entire acquisition proceedings were ultra vires and deserved to be quashed. High Court upheld the contention and set aside the entire proceedings including the award. He gave his award which was objected to by the owners who alleged inter alia that the entire acquisition proceedings were ultra vires and deserved to be quashed. High Court upheld the contention and set aside the entire proceedings including the award. The judgrqent does not indicate the reasons for the view taken by the learned Judges but obviously it is based on the provision contained in sub-sec. (3) of Section 49. This sub-section provides that when the State Government proceeds to acquire the entire land instead of the part thereof originally notified under sub-sec. (2) fresh notification shall not be necessary. There is no such provision in respect of cases covered by sub-sec. (1) of Section 49. The case which the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court were dealing with fell under sub-sec. (1). When in the same section different situations are dealt with under different sub-sections and waiver of the normal procedure is prescribed only in respect of situations covered by one or some of the sub-sections, the intention of the legislature is obvious that in respect of situations covered by other sub-sections the waiver clause is not to be applied. Sub-sec. (1) of Section 49 provides for the situation where the owners, whose part of the land has been notified for acquisition, insists on acquisition of the whole. Sub-sec. (2) deals with the situation where the State Government is (of) the opinion that damages claimed under clause thirdly of sub-sec. (l) of Section 23 on account of severance of land are unreasonable or excessive. Neither of the situations dealt with under sub-secs. (1) and (2) of Section 49 is attracted in the present case and, therefore, this authority has no application to the facts of the case on hand. 10. Another authority upon which reliance was placed by the learned Chief Standing Counsel is reported in AIR 1957 Andh Pra 686 (M. Venkatapathi Raju v. State of Andhra). This judgment has no bearing on the matter in controversy in the case on hand. The question involved in that case was whether the acquisition proceedings were bad because no part of the compensation to be awarded for the property acquired was paid by the Government nor a declaration of intention was made in that behalf before the issue of notification under Section 6 of the Act. 11. The question involved in that case was whether the acquisition proceedings were bad because no part of the compensation to be awarded for the property acquired was paid by the Government nor a declaration of intention was made in that behalf before the issue of notification under Section 6 of the Act. 11. The judgment of D. K. Mahajan, J. in State of Punjab v. Madan Gopal (AIR 1961 Punj 507) is also distinguishable. In this case the area notified under Sec. 6 was 28.11 acres while the Collector took possession over 30.49 acres. Compensation was awarded for 27.89 acres only. On these facts the contention of the owners of the land was that the entire acquisition proceedings were invalid. Mahajan, J., on these facts, held that the entire acquisition proceedings were not invalid; they were invalid only to the extent they covered land in excess of 28.11 acres. He also held that the claimant was entitled to compensation for 28.11 acres. The judgment thus indicates that although the learned Judge accepted that possession had been taken by the Collector over 30.49 acres he did not allow compensation over an area in excess of 28.11 acres which was the area notified under Sec. 6 of the Act. The judgment indicates that the claimant did not submit to the acquisition of the entire 30.49 acres. On account of the fact that possession had been taken over an area in excess of the area notified, the claimant challenged the entire acquisition proceedings. There was, therefore, no acquiescence in acquisition of excess area either by the claimant or by the State. 12. Thus out of all the above authorities the only authority which fully supports the contention of the learned Chief Standing Counsel is the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Harish Chunder Neogys case (supra). I agree with the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court when they lay down that the Collector has no jurisdiction to take possession over any property or area which is not covered by the notification under Section 6 A notification under Section 6 is issued by the State Government while possession under Section 16 or 17 is taken by the Collector who is an official subordinate to the State Government. As a subordinate official he has no jurisdiction to act against the directions of the State Government. As a subordinate official he has no jurisdiction to act against the directions of the State Government. The Act provides an elaborate scheme for informing the public at large of the land which is being acquired. The purpose of giving this information is to give opportunity to any one having interest in the land to prefer objections against the proposed acquisition. The objector may even urge that the area sought to be acquired is excessive and that public purpose would be sufficiently served by acquiring a smaller area. For this purpose it is necessary that the land sought to be acquired should be described with sufficient precision. Under Section 8 the Collector is required to get the land measured and get it demarcated if it has not already been demarcated under Section 4. Under Section 11 he has to decide objections against measurements and demarcation. All these provisions go to show that while taking possession over the property acquired the Collector is confined to the property-including the area thereof specified in the notification. If he goes beyond that area he commits trespass entitling the owner of the property to recover possession over the excess area. The question which, however, arises is whether the owner should be driven to a separate suit under the ordinary law for claiming compensation where he and the State both waive the illegality of the Collector and acquiese in the acquisition of property in excess of the area notified under Section 6 of the Act. 13. I have indicated the pleadings of the parties before the learned District Judge. In his application under Section 18 of the Act the respondent specifically indicated that the area over which possession had been taken was in excess of the area notified under Section 6 of the Act and that compensation had been awarded by the Collector for the lesser area and not for the entire area taken possession of. In the written statement the State Government did not allege that the Collector had no jurisdiction to take possession over the excess area and that it was prepared to vacate the possession of the excess area. In fact the State denied the allegation of the respondent. In other words the State Government did not accept the respondents contention that possession had been taken over an area in excess of the area notified under Section 6. In fact the State denied the allegation of the respondent. In other words the State Government did not accept the respondents contention that possession had been taken over an area in excess of the area notified under Section 6. In view of this controversy the learned District Judge had to issue commission in order to find the exact area which was in possession of the State. It would thus appear that there was a serious dispute between the parties as regards the actual area of the land over which possession had been taken by the Collector. If the view taken by the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court is to be accepted the claimant will have to wait till this controversy regarding area is finally decided ,by the authorities mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter when it is finally established that possession was taken over an area in excess of the area notified, he will have to file a suit for mesne profits in respect of the excess area only. In this suit the claimant would be entitled to compensation which would be different from the one payable under the Land Acquisition Act. Under sub-sec. (1) of Section 23 the claimant is entitled to compensation at the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under S- 4 (i) of the Act. He is also entitled to the damages referred to in clause, secondly, thirdly, fourthly, fifthly and sixthly of sub-sec. (1) of S- 23. In addition to the compensation on market value the claimant is also entitled to 15 per centum on such value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. The damages and the compensation prescribed under sub-sec. (2) of Section 23 cannot obviously be claimed in a suit for mesne profits under the ordinary law. Thus the State would be benefited by the illegal action of the Collector which it has owned by not vacating the possession. Such a situation would obviously be very unfair to the claimant who will be unnecessarily driven to two rounds of litigation, one before the Land Acquisition Officer and the other before the ordinary civil courts. Thus the State would be benefited by the illegal action of the Collector which it has owned by not vacating the possession. Such a situation would obviously be very unfair to the claimant who will be unnecessarily driven to two rounds of litigation, one before the Land Acquisition Officer and the other before the ordinary civil courts. In my opinion where the claimant as well as the State Government acquiesce in the acquisition of the excess area and the State enters into possession of the excess area and utilises the same in the public purpose for which land was acquired the State is estopped from saying that the claimant would not be entitled to compensation as prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. Thus on the principle of estoppel the respondent would be entitled to compensation for the area over which possession was actually taken by the Collector. This area according to the findings of the learned District Judge is 17 biswas and 10 biswansis. 14. In respect of the above area the learned District Judge has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 13.27 per biswansi. He has arrived at this rate on a consideration of examplars produced before him on behalf of the respondent as well as the State. The learned District Judge found that the sale deed dated 25-6-1971 produced on behalf of the respondent could be safely relied upon for determining the market value of the land in the locality and that the examplar produced on behalf of the State was not reliable because it was in respect of different quality of land. The learned District Judge was perfectly justified in relying upon the respondents examplar in preference to the examplar produced on .behalf of the appellant. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the compensation has been correctly fixed by the learned District Judge at Rs. 4644.50. In this view of the matter the appellants second grievance regarding the excessiveness of the compensation also deserve to be rejected. 15. In view of the above discussion the appeal preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh fails and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.