JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - Civil Miscellaneous Application is allowed. Written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 is taken on record. 2. On December 3, 1975, an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short to be called "the Act") was filed by the respondent/Gram Panchayat. After the proceedings, which had been prolonged for a period of almost ten years, the petitioner stated that he was ready to give possession of 6 marlas of land. The Collector had disposed of the matter vide his order dated November 18, 1985. The petitioner was directed to deliver "possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat within one month". He did not carry out the direction or honour his word. The respondent/Panchayat was again constrained to file a fresh application under Section 7 of the act. This application was allowed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer vide his order dated April 26, 1999. A copy of this order is at Annexure P5 with the writ petition. The petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Commissioner on April 26, 2000. A copy of the order of the Commissioner is at Annexure P6 with the petition. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He alleges that the order passed on November 18, 1985 cannot be executed after a lapse of 12 years. Thus, the petitioner prays that both the orders by quashed. 3. The respondent/Panchayat has field a reply and controverted the claim made by the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 5. Mr. Jasbir Singh contends that the limitation having expired, the order dated November 18, 1985 cannot be executed. Secondly, he submits that the dispute with regard to 23 marlas of land has been settled. The Panchayat is not honouring its commitment. Therefore, the petitioner is also not bound by the undertaking given by him on November 18, 1985. On these premises, the counsel prays that both the orders should be quashed. 6. Mr. Balram Singh appearing for the respondent-Panchayat controverts the claim made on behalf of the petitioner. 7. The respondent-panchayat had undoubtedly initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. These have culminated in the order dated November 18, 1985. The petitioner had undertaken to hand over vacant possession of the land. 6. Mr. Balram Singh appearing for the respondent-Panchayat controverts the claim made on behalf of the petitioner. 7. The respondent-panchayat had undoubtedly initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. These have culminated in the order dated November 18, 1985. The petitioner had undertaken to hand over vacant possession of the land. He had failed to abide by his undertaking. Thereafter, the gram Panchayat had initiated fresh proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. These were not in the nature of execution proceedings. Thus, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the plea of limitation could be raised, the fact remains that the Gram Panchayat had filed a fresh case. The claim has been upheld by the two authorities. It deserves notice that in the appeal, no plea of limitation was raised. 8. Mr. Jasbir Singh contends that the dispute was with regard to 23 marlas of land. With regard to 17 marlas. fresh proceedings have been separately initiated. These proceedings are continuing. A copy of the order passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer on Feb. 7, 2000 has been produced at Annexure P10 with the writ petition. He submits that the respondent/Panchayat is bound by its undertaking and thus, the petitioners claim in respect of 17 marlas of land should be accepted. 9. We are unable to accept this contention. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an appeal against the order dated February 7, 2000. That appeal is still pending before the Commissioner. We shall not like to make any observation in respect of a matter which is pending. So far as the present petition is concerned, it is directed against the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner, whereby the petitioner has been held to be in unauthorised occupation of the land measuring six marlas. The petitioner has not been able to prove that he has any right or title in the property. The order of his eviction is, thus, legal and valid. It calls for no interference. 10. No other point has been raised. 11. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is consequently dismissed. 12. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.