Judgment :- Sukumaran, J. The revision petition was placed before the Division Bench in the light of a view expressed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, on the interpretation of S.87 of the Land Reforms Act, 1964. 2. The brief facts areas follows. The proceedings under the Land Reforms Act for the fixation of ceiling area of land to be owned or held by the petitioner were initiated and brought to a culmination, ultimately, by order dated 13-8-1976 of the Land Board. The declarant was directed to surrender an extent of 7.02 acres of land. His revision against the order of the Land Board was unsuccessful. He surrendered what was adjudged in those proceedings to be, the excess area. He continued to hold land upto the brim of the permissible area under the legislation. 3. The petitioner did not intelligently plan his holding so as to insulate him against further incursion by the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. It happened on 5-10-1974, and beyond the calculation of the parties. The petitioner's mother passed away on that day. If she did not have any land to be left to the legal heirs, there would not have been any further problem. It was otherwise in this case. That swelled land area in the hands of the petitioner by another 13.01 acres of land. Under S.87(.t), when by inheritance (among many other modes of acquiring additional property), the area of land in the ownership or possession of a person exceeds the ceiling-limit, he has a corresponding liability to surrender the excess land. Thai obligation fell on the revision petitioner, as he was already having land up to the brim. The Land Board look the view that the excess land so reckoned is surrender able by the petitioner. On a fair and correct interpretation of S.87, liability for surrender is easily established when the additional area comes to his hands, when earlier ownership and enjoyment is up to the ceiling limit. The liability is immediately fastened. That would mean that certain excess areas are to be surrendered and immediately and instantaneously. Me can retain only the area of land within the ceiling provision. 4. In pursuance of the land acquisition proceedings certain areas were taken possession of by the acquisition authorities. Such acquisition and dispossession were only on the basis of payment of compensation for the land acquired. Me can retain only the area of land within the ceiling provision. 4. In pursuance of the land acquisition proceedings certain areas were taken possession of by the acquisition authorities. Such acquisition and dispossession were only on the basis of payment of compensation for the land acquired. In lieu of land, he got compensation. The properly was in his enjoyment. Its form only changed. 5. It was pointed out before the Land Board that subsequently in the year 1977, the acquisition proceedings resulted in award and that in implementation of the award, 8.02 acres of land had been taken possession of by the acquisition authorities. It cannot be said that the petitioner is not in possession of part of the properly because land acquisition proceedings is halfway through. Once the liability is properly determined, other matters also get simultaneously crystallised such as exercise of an option for surrender of a particular land on the basis of the compilation of the ceiling area. 6. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in C.R.P.No. 2410/78, to the effect that somehow or other, some area of land was surrendered and therefore due allowance has to be given for that extent.-while actually implementing the decision of the Land Board. The Land Reforms Legislation has, as one of its broad objectives, a leveling down of land holdings; land holdings, that until recently was a coverable wealth.. If the land cannot be held by a party, in view of the mandate of the legislature of not perm ill ing land in excess of the ceiling area, he can not gel a benefit which is denied by the legislature by another met hod or a back door entry. Excluding the area of land, subjected to acquisition proceedings but which continued to be owned and held by the declarant from the computation of the ceiling area and surrender able area, and simultaneously allowing the party to have the compensation for. the acquired land though at a later time would not be in tune with the scheme or the purpose of legislation. On 5-10-1974, there was no dispossession of land as far as the petitioner is concerned, though acquisition proceedings had been already initiated. the acquired land though at a later time would not be in tune with the scheme or the purpose of legislation. On 5-10-1974, there was no dispossession of land as far as the petitioner is concerned, though acquisition proceedings had been already initiated. The later dispossession of land will not in any way affect the liability for surrender fixed with reference to the relevant date of addition' to the land in his hands, which as already staled, look place on 5-10-1974. 7. Counsel for the petitioner had to take up another contention about the ignorance of the last will and testament of the deceased mother. The Land Board has declined to act on it, as the will had not been probated. It was found that two attesting witnesses had not given any evidence which would persuade the Land Board to' accept their testimony to hold the will has been duly proved. We are inclined to uphold that factual finding. A clear conviction about n proper and genuine will is indispensable for court or authority to act up on a will propounded by a party. We had also a close scrutiny of the document and we are satisfied that the finding of the Land Board does not call for any interference by I his Court in the limited jurisdiction under S.103 of the Land Reforms Act. We arc of the view that the interpretation of S.87 in the manner indicated above would not result in any injustice. The decision of T. Chandrasekhara Menon J. in C.R.P.2410 of 1978 does not contain any reasoning which would enable a party to escape, the consequences of the ceiling provisions. If hard and unpalatable consequences are inescapable on a proper interpretation of the Act, the Court is helpless. The decisions of T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J. and of M.P. Menon, J. do not induce us to take a different view of the scope and ambit of S.87(1). The conclusion of the Land Board, that the petitioner has to surrender excess area in the light of the computation, could not be characterised as erroneous. In the circumstances, we dismiss the Revision, but without any order as to costs.