ORDER N.C. Khichi, J. - This judgment of mine shall dispose of CWP Nos. 3038 and 3039 of 1980, as common question of law and common property is involved therein. CWP No. 3038 of 1980 arises out of a civil suit filed by Ramji Lal, father of respondents No. 3 to 6, for acquisition of occupancy rights in respect of land of Khasra No. 608 measuring 26 Bighas 9 Biswas against the landowners, whereas CWP No. 3039 of 1980 arises out of an application filed by the landowners for eviction of the tenant Ramji Lal son of Shiv Dayal under Section 9(1)(i) and (ii) read with Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, on the ground that the landowners were small landowners and the tenants had not paid rent regularly. This application for eviction was originally filed some time before 26.12.1969 when it was rejected. In appeal, the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar remanded the case by order dated 9.11.1970. After remand, the application for eviction was again rejected by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Bhiwani vide his order date 7.2.1973 (Annexure P-1 in CWP No. 3039 of 1980). In the meantime, the tenant (Ramji Lal) filed a suit on 4.12.1970 for acquisition of occupancy rights of the same land. This suit was decreed by the same Assistant Collector vide order dated 7.2.1973 (Annexure P-1 in CWP No. 3038 of 1980). 2. The landowners filed appeal in both the cases decided by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Bhiwani, and the appeals were allowed by the Collector, Bhiwani, vide ordered dated 8.1.1974 by holding that the tenant respondent No. 1 (Ramji Lal) did not fulfill the conditions as laid down in section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and, therefore, had not acquired occupancy rights of the land in question. He also held that the appellant was a small landowner and, therefore, had a right to eject the tenant. Thereafter, the tenant Ramji Lal filed appeal against both the orders of the Collector before Commissioner, Hisar. The appeal arising out of the occupancy rights case was decided by the Commissioner on 21.2.1977 accepting the occupancy rights of the tenant. Vide order dated 28.3.1977 the appeal arising out of the eviction proceedings was also accepted by the Commissioner merely on the ground that he had already granted occupancy rights to the tenant in respect of the same land. Vide order dated 28.3.1977 the appeal arising out of the eviction proceedings was also accepted by the Commissioner merely on the ground that he had already granted occupancy rights to the tenant in respect of the same land. The judgment of the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, were upheld by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, in both the cases vide two separate judgments dated 28.5.1980 (Annexure P-4). 3. Now the decisions of the Financial Commissioner have been challenged by the landowner by way of these two civil writ petitions, on the grounds, inter alia, that after coming into force of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, the Revenue Court was not competent to decide the controversy in question, and, therefore, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has primarily argued that the Revenue Courts were not competent to decide the controversy in question after coming into force of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, and therefore, the orders Annexures P-1, P-3 and P-4 in CWP No. 3038 of 1980 are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside on this short ground. In support of his submission, Mr. Mittal relied on Achhar Singh and another v. Smt. Kartar Kaur and another, 1959 PLR 231 : 1958 PLJ 70; Amin Lal v. Financial Commissioner and others, 1971 PLJ 619 and Dinu v. Nasib Khan, 1975 PLJ 316. 6. In order to controvert the argument of Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel for the respondents made reference to the judgments rendered in Chandu Lal v. Shri S.K. Chhibber and others, 1983 PLJ 559 and Smt. Kishno and others v. Gurdit Singh and another, 1988 PLJ 222. 7. In Amin Lals case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that after the coming into force of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, the occupancy rights had ceased to exist and all of them were automatically converted into statutory ownership. As a matter of fact, after the appointed day as given in the said Act, no occupancy rights whether at present or in future could continue giving rise to any occasion for independently establishing a claim to those rights except that proof of such rights may sometime be necessary to prove ownership. As a matter of fact, after the appointed day as given in the said Act, no occupancy rights whether at present or in future could continue giving rise to any occasion for independently establishing a claim to those rights except that proof of such rights may sometime be necessary to prove ownership. The learned Counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the Single Bench judgments. I am bound by the law laid down by the Division Bench to the effect that the occupancy right stood extinguished on the 15th of April, 1953, when the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 came into force and every tenant claiming occupancy rights automatically became owner of the land by operation of law. Therefore, the judgments/orders Annexures P-1, P-3 and P-4 (in CWP No. 3038 of 1980) are without jurisdiction. 8. In the application for eviction, the Collector had held that the Superintending Canal Officers were small landowners and accepted the application vide order dated 8.1.1964 (Annexure P-2). That order of the Collector was set aside by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, without discussing the merits of the case and only on the ground that he had by an earlier order dated 21.2.1977 allowed the tenants to become occupancy tenant. Since no reason has been given for this conclusion by the Commissioner, the order 28.3.1977 is also not sustainable. The Financial Commissioner also fell in the same error. Resultantly, the orders (Annexures P-3 and P-4) in CWP No. 3039 of 1980 are also without jurisdiction especially because I have held that the granting of occupancy rights to the tenant was without jurisdiction. 9. In view of the above discussion, I allow both the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders. No costs. Petitions allowed.