ORDER : K MANMADHA RAO, J. This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the 4th respondent in initiating proceedings under Sections 145 Cr.P.C. in regard to land admeasuring Ac 0.08 cents of Thavanampalle Village and Mandal and consequential prohibition orders passed against the petitioners from entering the said land vide proceedings in MC No.20/2017 dated 28.10.2017, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that one Mr. Raghavulu sold the entire stretch of land in Sy No.107 in favour of Mr. Chengarlraya Chetty for a valid consideration vide registered sale deed dated 11.02.1911 and delivered possession of the said lands. Further the petitioners’ great grandfather Mr. Chengal Reddy purchased the said site/lands from Chengalraya Chetty for consideration vide registered sale deed dated 16.02.1916 and that he was put in possession of the said land. Later the petitioners’ grandfather’s four sons partitioned their joint family properties orally prior to 1970 and that during the said partition the lands in Sy No.107 and lands in Sy No.106/2 and the temple situated therein all fell into the share of Mr. Subrahmanyam Reddy, as the 1st petitioner herein has been taking care of the said Mr. Subramanyam Reddy, and out of love and affect he transferred the said property in Sy No.107 vide registered gift settlement deed dated 08.01.1998 in favour of the 1st petitioner. While the things stood thus, who bore grudge against the petitioners, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of subject property, the petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S No.559 of 2017 for declaration of title on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor (for short “the trial Court”) along with I.A.No.585 of 2017 seeking for grant of interim injunction and the trial Court has granted interim injunction. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the 4th respondent has issued proceedings vide M.C.No.20/2015 dated 28.10.2017 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., prohibiting the petitioners and some third parties from entry and occupation of the subject land i.e., Ac 0.08 cents in Sy.No.107 of Thavanampalli Revenue Village and Mandal until further orders to avoid untoward incidents by alleging that both the groups have been frequently engaging in quarrel and thereby disturbing peace. Questioning the same the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Questioning the same the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Sri Keerthi Kiran Kota, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents made in the petition submits that when the civil matter is seized before the competent civil Court in regard to title and possession of the subject property, the 4th respondent herein ought not to have passed orders under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C., and that too in contradiction to the orders passed by the competent civil court i.e., the order dated 24.10.2017 in I.A No.585 of 2017 in O.S No.559 of 2017 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. He further submits that Section 145 (1) Cr.PC clearly stipulates whenever the 4th respondent is satisfied either from a police report or on information, that a dispute is likely to cause breach of peace, he shall make an order in writing stating the reasons and should also direct the concerned parties to approach Court on a specified date and time and put forward their respective claims of possession in writing, but whereas the 4th respondent herein has neither disclosed any reason in his prohibitory order dated 28.10.2017 nor has specified a time to appear before him to adjudicate the claim. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 5. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Amresh Tiwari versus Lalta Prasad Dubey and another , (2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 440 wherein the Apex Court held that: It is only in cases where civil suit is for possession or for declaration of title in respect of the same property and where reliefs regarding protection of the property concerned can be applied for and granted by the civil court that proceedings under Section 145 should not be allowed to continue. This is because the civil court is competent to decide the question of title as well as possession between the parties and the orders of the civil Court would be binding on the Magistrate. . In this view of the matter the appeal is allowed. The impugned Order is set aside. In our view, the S.D.M. was right in discontinuing the proceedings under Section 145 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE . . In this view of the matter the appeal is allowed. The impugned Order is set aside. In our view, the S.D.M. was right in discontinuing the proceedings under Section 145 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE . The Order passed by the S.D.M. on 9th of June, 1999 is restored. 6. In another case reported in Mohd. Shafluddin General Secretary (Managing committee, Masjid Asar-e-Shareef Rahmanla, Tallagadda Hyderabad and another vs. State of A.P and others , wherein the High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad at Hyderabad, held that: “…, when the civil dispute is pending before the civil Court with regard to the same subject mtter, the powers of the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C are excluded, be it that the proceedings before the Executive Magistreate were initiated prior to the institution of the suit or after the institution of the suit. The remedy open to the parties is only to settle their claims befor ethe court where the civil suit is pending and the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 CrPC gets excluded the moment the civil proceedings are initiated.” 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the 4th respondent has already filed counter in this matter denying the allegations made in the petition. He submits that the suit in O.S No.559 of 2017 stated to have been filed by the petitioners is private suit and the government has not been impleaded as party. Moreover, the petitioners did not brought to the notice of Tahsildar about the pendency of suit during the enquiry. Therefore the Tahsildar is not aware of the suit pending as contended by the petitioners. He further submits that on the requisition given by the Station House Officer, Thavanapalle, the 4th respondent has issued promulgation of order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C on 28.10.2017 to maintain law and order and to prevent breach of peace and to maintain tranquility and also to forbid any sort of disturbance in the locality. He mainly contended that there is no information about the pendency of private suit prior to issuance of order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C and the said orders are not illegal and against law. Hence, the prayer of the petitioners to set aside the said proceedings needs no consideration. He mainly contended that there is no information about the pendency of private suit prior to issuance of order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C and the said orders are not illegal and against law. Hence, the prayer of the petitioners to set aside the said proceedings needs no consideration. In view of the above, there are no merits in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels and having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, this Court observed that, it is admitted fact that the petitioners have already filed a suit for declaration in which an interim injunction has also been granted by the civil Court, Chittoor vide order dated 24.10.2017. Once the civil Court is seized of the matter, it goes without saying that the proceedings under Section 145 /146 CrPC cannot proceed and must come to an end. The inter se rights of the parties regarding title or possession are eventually to be determined by the civil Court. 9. It is only in cases where civil suit is for possession or for declaration of title in respect of the same property and where reliefs regarding protection of the property concerned can be applied for and granted by the civil court that proceedings under Section 145 should not be allowed to continue. This is because the civil court is competent to decide the question of title as well as possession between the parties and the orders of the civil Court would be binding on the Magistrate. 10. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Apex Court as referred to above, this Court is of the opinion that, since the civil proceedings are pending before the civil Court, the Tahsildar. Thavanampalle i.e., 4th respondent has no jurisdiction to issue 145 proceedings to the petitioner, therefore, inclined to allow the present writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in MC No.20/2017, dated 28.10.2017 of the 4th respondent, is herby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.