JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan J.: - Learned counsel for the petitioner adverts to just one issue that in terms of a Full Bench ruling of this Court in Shiv Charan Vs. Financial Commissioner, 2004 (3) PLR 569, the grant of declaration to the status of a person as occupancy tenant, the Civil Court only will have jurisdiction to determine the dispute envisaged under Section 77(3)(d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. There was a simultaneous extinguishment of the rights of Occupancy and conversion of the same into ownership under the Act, a civil suit would lie with respect to both the categories of occupancy tenants envisaged in Section 2(f) of the Vesting Act. Section 77(3)(d) of the Tenancy Act takes out of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court only that suit which is instituted to establish a claim to a right of occupancy and not where title to property is to be decided on the determination of occupancy rights which determination was only to substantiate the plea of ownership. After the coming into force of the Vesting of Proprietary Rights Act, occupancy rights had ceased to exist and all of them were automatically converted into statutory ownership. This judgment has been followed in Tara Chand and another Vs. Neonand @ Nauna and another, 2005(3) PLR 727. The argument consequently was that the order passed by the Authorities entertaining the petition filed by Hari Lal for occupancy rights cannot any longer to granted. 2. In both these writ petitions, the applications have been filed at the instance of tenants for grant of occupancy rights before the Assistant Collector and all the successive authorities in the higher tiers of quasi-judicial adjudicatory bodies have affirmed the tenants’ rights and granted the declaration. There have been objections before the Authorities saying that the declaration could have been granted only before the Civil Court since the question of whether occupancy rights as fructified into full ownership would be a matter that would fall for adjudication only before the Civil Court. These objections were set aside and orders were passed. In tune with the decision of the Full Bench referred to above in Shiv Charan’s case, the jurisdiction vests only with the Civil Court and the declaration granted by the trial Court would require to be set aside. 3. These objections were set aside and orders were passed. In tune with the decision of the Full Bench referred to above in Shiv Charan’s case, the jurisdiction vests only with the Civil Court and the declaration granted by the trial Court would require to be set aside. 3. Both the writ petitions are allowed but this cannot be taken by the landlord as entitling him to cause any disturbance to the tenants’ possession otherwise than in accordance with law. The tenants will be at liberty to seek for a declaration before a competent authority of civil jurisdiction. --------------