JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge is to an order dated 27.7.2012 disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellants recording that compensation in sum of Rs. 81,567/- has been paid for the acquired land to the appellants. 3. Grievance in the appeal is that the learned Single Judge failed to determine whether the amount paid was adequate or not. 4. We have perused the writ petition and would highlight that the pleadings are a little vague but meaningfully read claim of the appellants was that a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 proposing to acquire agricultural and abadi land owned by late Mehta Jagannath Singh, who on account of the high office he held did not want to litigate and thus on 10.9.1971, a settlement was arrived at. The settlement was annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition and it records that for agricultural land, at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per bigha, Rs. 23,375/- as compensation would be paid. For 12 biswa abadi land compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/- per sq.ft. totalling Rs. 41,862/- was agreed to be paid. For permanent structures on the agricultural land compensation in sum of Rs. 50,159/- was to be paid. For trees on the acquired agricultural land compensation in sum of Rs. 32,604/- had to be paid. Solatium agreed to be paid was Rs. 22,200/-. Qua these lands the structures and trees there are no averments that the agreed compensation was not paid. 5. The settlement between the parties also records that 8885 sq.ft. of abadi land would not be acquired unless a part thereof was required as a consequence of the realignment of the road. The agreement does not record as to what compensation would be paid for this land if it was ultimately acquired in full or in part. 6. In the writ petition it is pleaded that from out of the 8885 sq.ft. land, 4524 sq.ft. land is available for construction of shops for which the petitioners submitted a proposal. It is pleaded that out of the remaining 4361 sq.ft. land it has been utilized by the national highway authorities. There are further pleadings in the writ petition that compensation remains to be paid for said 4361 sq.ft. land, 4524 sq.ft. land is available for construction of shops for which the petitioners submitted a proposal. It is pleaded that out of the remaining 4361 sq.ft. land it has been utilized by the national highway authorities. There are further pleadings in the writ petition that compensation remains to be paid for said 4361 sq.ft. land and the pleadings are that part compensation needs to be paid by the State PWD and remainder by RSRTC. 7. Suffice it to state that the agreement does not record what compensation would be paid for the abadi land if ultimately acquired. 8. In our opinion, writ remedy would not be available to the appellants-petitioners for the reason determination of compensation for acquired land has to be done by the Land Acquisition Collector and if parties are aggrieved by the compensation awarded reference has to be sought under the law. 9. Thus, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. 10. The appeal is dismissed.