Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.9408, 9639 and 9640 of 1991 filed by the Improvement Trust and CWP Nos.13688, 13694, 13696 of 1991 filed by the land owners, questioning the validity of the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal. The Improvement Trust seeks reduction of compensation awarded, apart from challenging the award of additional compensation under section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, `the 1894 Act) on the ground that the award of the Collector was 3.2.1979 i.e. prior to 30.4.1982, while the land owners seek further enhancement. 2. Land in question was acquired in pursuance of notification under section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (in short, `the 1922 Act) dated 27.12.1974. The said notification was followed by notification dated 19.12.1975 under section 42 of the 1922 Act. The Collector vide award dated 3.2.1979 determined compensation at the rate of Rs.2700/- per marla. On reference to the Tribunal under the provisions of the 1922 Act, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.15000/- per marla. The Tribunal considered 18 instances of sale produced on behalf of the land owners and three instances of sale produced on behalf of the Improvement Trust. The said instances have been detailed in para 9 of the impugned award. Referring to Ex.R.1, which was a sale deed relied upon on behalf of the Improvement Trust, it was noticed that the price fetched therein was Rs.10,000/- per marla. The Tribunal observed that in the site plan, the location of the said land was inferior to the acquired land in as much as the acquired land was on the main road. Even the Collector had not acted upon Ex.R.1. The average of instances produced by the claimants worked out to Rs.24000/- per marla but the said instances were mostly after the acquisition. It was also observed that some allowance had to be made in favour of land owners as acquisition in question was six months after the sale instances Ex.R.1 and acquired land was better located. Taking an overall view of oral and documentary evidence on the record, compensation was determined at Rs.15000/- per marla. Oral evidence, inter alia, comprised AW4 Harmesh Chander, property dealer who stated that value of one marla of land in the area was more than Rs.30,000/- and gave certain instances in support of his statement. Taking an overall view of oral and documentary evidence on the record, compensation was determined at Rs.15000/- per marla. Oral evidence, inter alia, comprised AW4 Harmesh Chander, property dealer who stated that value of one marla of land in the area was more than Rs.30,000/- and gave certain instances in support of his statement. It was also noticed that the acquired land abutted the GT road towards Ludhiana. There were petrol pumps, clinics, cinema houses, tractor agencies near the acquired land. Office of SDM was also near the acquired land apart from Bus Stand, Police Station and Courts. Land was within municipal limits. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the Improvement Trust. None has appeared for the land owners. 4. Learned counsel for the Improvement Trust submitted that the compensation awarded was excessive as average of sale instances produced by the land owners could not be taken into account being subsequent to acquisition except instances 2, 3 and 4, which related to very very small pieces of land 5. We are of the view that the Tribunal has reached its conclusion based on appreciation of evidence. Two instances relied upon by the land owners are prior to acquisition and support the value arrived at by the Tribunal. The location of land has not been disputed, which is within the municipal limits and in the heart of the town. Even if two views are possible, finding of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction unless the same is shown to be perverse or without any evidence. We also find no scope for enhancement as claimed by land owners. In these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the determination of market value by the Tribunal. We, however, find merit in the contention that additional compensation under section 23(1-A) of the 1894 Act could not be awarded to the land owners, in view of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 1012, as the award of the Collector is prior to 30.4.1982. 6. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of by not interfering with the determination of market value but with a direction that benefit under section 23(1-A) of the 1894 Act will not be available to the land owners.