JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief: - (i) For quashing of the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Godda in Misc. Case No. 42 of 2018-19 contained in Annexure - 4 to the writ petition by which the respondent no. 4 has illegally rejected the claim of the petitioner with respect to payment of compensation on account of acquired lands appertaining to Dag No. 64, 66, 77,72 and 76 of khata no. 7 situated at mouza Khadhara Ghat, P.S. Mahagama, District-Godda; (ii) For quashing the order 18.8.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda in Misc. Petition No. 06 of 2019 contained in Annexure - 5 to the writ petition by which the respondent no. 3 has illegally rejected the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation with respect to the acquired lands; (iii) For a direction to make payment of the amount of compensation with respect to the aforementioned acquired lands in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 3. The brief facts as per the pleadings are that the land appertaining to plot numbers 64, 66, 77, 72 and 76 having Jamabandi number-7, situated within village-Khadhara Ghat, police station-Mahagama in the district of Godda, was acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 34 of 2011-12. The land forming subject matter of the instant petition was recorded in the record of rights prepared during the Gantzer's Survey in the name of Basudeo Choudhary and, Raghunath Choudhary (sons of Kangal Dutt Choudhary) and Uday Dutt Choudhary and Surendra Nath Choudhary (sons of Kangal Dutt Choudhary) and Ashutosh Choudhary, Sudhir Dutt Choudhary and Budhir Dutt Choudhary (sons of Nirwaran Dutt Choudhary). Uday Dutt Choudhary was survived by his sons, namely Banbihari Dutt Choudhary, Radha Nath Dutt and Madhusudhan Dutt Choudhary. The petitioner is the granddaughter of Madhusudhan Dutt Choudhary and daughter of Satahari Dutt. The petitioner also has a brother namely, Haradhan Dutt and as such the claim of the petitioner is that she is entitled to ½ of the share in the acquired land. 4. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that she filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda. The same was registered as Misc Case No. 42 of 2018-19. 4. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that she filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda. The same was registered as Misc Case No. 42 of 2018-19. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, after an enquiry, directed the District Land Acquisition Officer, Godda, to consider the claim as per the applicable rules. 5. The petitioner’s claim was rejected on the ground that the property was jointly held in the name of several persons, and in absence of a partition, the award could not be released in favour of one of such persons. This order passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Godda, was assailed before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, which was rejected on the ground of maintainability. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the award has been illegally prepared in the name of only Haradhan Dutt (brother of the petitioner), which is illegal and as such ½ of the compensation amount ought to be released in the favour of the petitioner. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the State, has stated that the beneficiary of the acquisition process is NTPC and has supported the order. 8. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9 had submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference. 9. Mr. Prashant Pallav, Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India, representing NTPC, has argued that the instant writ is not maintainable. The actual remedy of the petitioner lies before the Ld. Court in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Ld. ASGI indicated the averments made in para 11 of the writ petition, which states that the petitioner herself has conceded that the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, has no jurisdiction. He, however, objects to the assertion made by the petitioner that the matter ought to have been referred to an ‘Arbitrator’ as the Act, 1894 has no such provision. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein; this Court finds that dispute indeed pertains to apportionment, and the same must be adjudicated in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein; this Court finds that dispute indeed pertains to apportionment, and the same must be adjudicated in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Furthermore, as the land acquisition was made prior to the enactment of “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013”, and there is no pleading to suggest that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed, the Court finds force in the argument advanced by the Ld. ASGI that the Act of 2013 would not come into play. 11. In light thereof, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. However, the instant petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector for referring the matter to the Ld. Court of competent jurisdiction, in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Respondent-State is directed to dispose of the application, if made, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the application. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending IAs, if any, are closed. No order as to cost.