The burden of proof lies on the person raising a dispute regarding title in proceedings under Section 7 of the Act to prima facie substantiate the claim of title with evidence.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 9.9.1993 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jhajjar, on a petition filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short the Act). Order dated 4.10.1993 passed by the Collector, Rohtak, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been assailed in the writ petition.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 3 who is a resident of village Dubaldhan Ghikain, Tehsil Jhajjar, district Rohtak filed an application under Section 7 of the Act alleging encroachments on the village land by the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 prayed that a direction be issued for removing unauthorised encroachment made by the petitioner. That application was contested by the petitioner who pleaded that the land in dispute did not form part of the public street but vested in his family. He pleaded that the land had been in possession of his forefathers and, therefore, the village Panchayat had no jurisdiction over the land.

3. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade ordered the Kanungo, Circle Beri, to make an inspection and report the matter about the alleged encroachment over the land in question. He also made an on the spot inspection on 15.7.1993 in the presence of the parties and other villagers. Thereafter, he heard the arguments of both the parties and passed order Annexure P. 1 holding that the land in dispute was a part of the street which was constructed by the Panchayat and was being used by the general public and that respondent No. 1 (petitioner herein) had obstructed the user of the street by placing bricks. Thereupon, respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner to immediately vacate the unauthorised occupation of the village land. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Assistant Collector has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 vide his letter dated 4.10.1993.

4. The only argument advanced by Shri Adarsh Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had no jurisdiction to make an adjudication on the application filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 7 of the Act and in any case respondent No. 2 should have decided, the dispute regarding title in accordance with the provisions of Section 13-A of the 1961 Act as added by the Haryana Amendment. Shri Jain argued that even though the petitioner had specifically pleaded that the land in dispute belonged to his predecessors, neither respondent No. 2 nor respondent No. 1 decided this issue and both these authorities have passed cryptic order under the provisions of the 1961 Act. The learned Assistant Advocate General and Mr. Malik vehemnelty argued that the petitioner has been found guilty of unauthorisedly occupying the public land and therefore no writ should be issued in his favour. They argued that the land in question forms part of public street which had been paved and metalled by the village Panchayat for the common use by the public of the village and the petitioner had obstructed the user of the street by raising construction over the street by unauthorisedly occupying it and that respondent No. 2 as well as respondent No. 1, have rightly held him guilty of unauthorised encroachment over the village land. Learned counsel argued that no real issue of dispute regarding the title of the property was raised by the petitioner and, therefore, it was not at all essential for respondent No. 2 or for that reasons respondent No. 1 to stay their hands from making an adjudication of the application filed by respondent No. 3. Learned Assistant Advocate General pointed out that the Act of 1961 has been amended by the Amending Acts Nos. 15 of 1983 and 9 of 1992 passed by the Haryana Legislature and in view of the amended provisions the dispute regarding title is required to be determined only when such a dispute is raised and prima facie proved on the basis of the documents and as no such d