JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The first respondent had filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 against the petitioner. A reply was filed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated January 15, 2001. It was prayed that the proceedings be dropped. Vide order dated March 5, 2001, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-15 with the writ petition, the competent authority has found that "both the parties have yet to produce their respective evidence in the Court. So long as both the parties place their evidence on the file, till then, it is not proper to drop the proceedings". Thus, the application has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. 2. Mr. Sarwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that a relationship of landlord and tenant exists. Thus, the petition under Section 7 of the Act is not competent. 3. According to the petitioner, it had taken land measuring 9.32 acres on lease at the rate of Rs. 5,633/- per year. There was a provision for increase at the rate of 33% after every 10 years. The petitioner claims that it has been making periodic deposits. In respect of the amount which was due upto December 311, 2000, an application dated December 8, 2000 was filed for permission to make the deposit. Despite these facts, the Panchayat had filed the petition under Section 7 of the Act and claimed damages for unauthorised occupation amounting to Rs. 1,31,42,500/-. According to the respondent- Panchayat the amount of money due from the petitioner on account of use and occupation was Rs. 6,57,125/-. 4. There is nothing on record to show that the agreement which had been allegedly executed on January 7, 1985 still subsists. Equally, we are not satisfied that the respondent-Panchayat could have given away more than 9 acres of land for a paltry sum of Rs. 7,492/- per annum. The property is admittedly located close to the Municipal limits of Ludhiana. The land is worth its weight in gold. The petitioner has been given notice of the proceedings initiated by the respondent-Panchayat. The application for dropping the proceedings has been rightly dismissed as the parties have yet to lead their evidence. The view taken by the authority is perfectly just and reasonable. The land is worth its weight in gold. The petitioner has been given notice of the proceedings initiated by the respondent-Panchayat. The application for dropping the proceedings has been rightly dismissed as the parties have yet to lead their evidence. The view taken by the authority is perfectly just and reasonable. There is no violation of law. Consequently, no ground for interference is made out. 5. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.