JUDGMENT : T.R.RAVI, J. 1. All these original petitions raise the same question; whether the proceedings before the reference court should await the decision of the Civil Court in a partition suit instituted by the petitioners herein for partition of certain properties. A partition suit was initially filed including plaint A schedule which consists of two items of immovable properties. The party respondents in these original petitions are defendants in the said suit. Later, plaint B schedule was added, which relates to the compensation which was paid on acquisition of certain lands. The petitioners laid claim over the said amount stating that those related to properties which originally belonged to their predecessor and which had come into the hands of the predecessor of the party respondents. Admittedly, the acquired properties stood in the name of deceased Rajan, the predecessor of the party respondents. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 , defines ‘land owner’ to include any person whose name is recorded as the owner of the land or building or part thereof, in the records of the authority concerned. Hence deceased Rajan is the undisputed land owner. As far as the petitioners in these original petitions are concerned, they may come within the definition of the word ‘person interested’ since they are claiming an interest in the compensation. Section 60 states that the ‘authority’ has all the powers vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the delineated aspects. Section 63 bars jurisdiction of the Civil Courts with respect to matters which are to be decided by the Collector or the authority under the Act. Under Section 61 , the proceedings before the authority are treated as judicial proceedings. Section 64 deals with reference to the authority. It can be seen from the provisions that any matter relating to apportionment of the amount awarded can be dealt with by the authority. When there is an authority of exclusive jurisdiction, it cannot be contended that the authority should wait till a Civil Court decides on the rights of parties in a partition suit. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the authority is not a Civil Court. When there is an authority of exclusive jurisdiction, it cannot be contended that the authority should wait till a Civil Court decides on the rights of parties in a partition suit. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the authority is not a Civil Court. Even if the authority is not treated as a Civil Court, it cannot be said that the powers of the Civil Court have not been granted to the authority to decide matters on merit. One of the aspects which the authority is expected to decide is the apportioning of the compensation. Any apportionment can be done only by deciding on the share of the parties. 2. In the above circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that the authority should suspend its functions and await the decision of the Civil Court in a partition suit is not legally sustainable. The original petitions fail and are dismissed.