JUDGMENT : VIRENDER SINGH, J. 1. Aggrieved of order dated 02.02.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 1504 of 2008, the appellant-State of Jharkhand has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. There is delay of 1547 days in filing the appeal, condonation thereof sought for through I.A. No.3439 of 2016. Not only there is ‘a huge’ delay in filing the appeal which, we are noticing, has become a usual practice of the State, there appears to be otherwise no reason much less sufficient reason carved out for the said delay. That apart, even on merits also, we do not find any substance in the instant appeal. We, therefore feel the necessity of adverting to the facts of the case. 3. The respondent-writ petitioner approached the Court when the Circle Officer refused to grant rent receipts to him. Briefly stated, the father of the respondent purchased 7.08 acres of land comprised in plot no. 3654, khata no. 194/560 at village-Samaliya and 5.34 acres land comprised in plot no. 1.3.8, thana no. 141, khata no. 73 at Bajra from Thakur Madender Nath Shahdeo and Lal Harakh Nath Shahdeo for valuable consideration. The father of the respondent, late S. M. Ahmed came in peaceful possession of the land and got his name mutated in the revenue records and started paying rent to the Government of Bihar. Late S. M. Ahmed died in the year, 1974 and he was buried in the aforesaid plot. The step-mother of the respondent was also buried next to her husband. It is pleaded that during his life time father of the respondent informed vide letter dated 09.07.1962 to the In-charge Deputy Collector and vide letter dated 23.07.1969 to the Block Development Officer about gift made by him in respect of the aforesaid land to his four sons including, the respondent. When no objection was received in response to notice dated 21.04.1970 issued from the office of the Circle Officer calling for objections, name of the respondent and his brother were entered in Register-II, and correction slip was issued in their favour. The appellant-Circle Officer, however, stopped accepting rent for the aforesaid land and after the respondent returned from abroad and settled in Mumbai, he approached the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in this regard. He submitted a representation also before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on 30.08.2005 and another representation to the Additional Collector, Ranchi on 21.09.2005. The appellant-Circle Officer, however, stopped accepting rent for the aforesaid land and after the respondent returned from abroad and settled in Mumbai, he approached the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in this regard. He submitted a representation also before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on 30.08.2005 and another representation to the Additional Collector, Ranchi on 21.09.2005. However, his grievance was not redressed, constrained the respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 1504 of 2008. 4. In the writ proceeding, the Circle Officer filed counter-affidavit asserting that the land in question stands recorded as “Gair Majurwa Malik” land in Revisional Survey Records of Rights and nature of the land has been recorded as “Parti Garha”. The respondent pleaded that jamabandi was created in the name of Syed S. M. Ahmed, the father of the respondent without obtaining orders of the competent authority and, thereafter, vide Succession Mutation No. 2 of 1992-92 jamabandi was created in the name of his sons including, the respondent. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P. V contends that the aforesaid land stands vested in the State in the year 1955-56 under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, however, the learned counsel fails to disclose any order in this respect from the Writ Court proceeding. The learned counsel further contends that rent receipt from 1972-73 to 1992-93 was issued on 26.11.1992. There is no provision in law which prohibits one-time payment of rent for about 20 years. It is not a case pleaded by the appellant-State that it collects rent from the land owner on its own, or that demand is raised by the State for releasing rent from landlord/landowner etc. 6. The respondent specifically pleaded before the Writ Court that his father built a farm house, mosque, dairy farm, poultry farm, tennis court etc. on the aforesaid land, however, the appellant-State did not deny the assertion in paragraph no.7 of the Writ Petition, by pleading that there is no such construction over the aforesaid land. As noticed above, the respondent pleaded 4 that his father and his step-mother were also buried on the said land. In the present proceeding, in paragraph no. 8 the appellant-State has pleaded that jamabandi in the name of father of the respondent was created on the basis of Jamindari Rent Receipt No. 1565 dated 01.07.1955 Samvat 2010. A plea is sought to be raised that jamabandi was created without permission of the competent authority. In the present proceeding, in paragraph no. 8 the appellant-State has pleaded that jamabandi in the name of father of the respondent was created on the basis of Jamindari Rent Receipt No. 1565 dated 01.07.1955 Samvat 2010. A plea is sought to be raised that jamabandi was created without permission of the competent authority. The aforesaid plea appears to have been raised for the sake of opposition only and it has no substance in it. Any error committed by its own officials cannot be a ground for the State to doubt genuineness of an entry made in the revenue records. If some mistake has been committed by its own officers, before depriving a person of his valuable rights, the State must first identify the guilty officer and take action against him/her, before initiating a proceeding against an occupier. In fact, it is the State which is required to file civil suit; if it raises a claim over land which is in possession of a person. Viewed thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the State which deserves to the dismissed. 7. We, however, take judicial notice of the fact that generally counter-affidavits are filed through lower-ranking officials and it is not made known to the Court whether such affidavits have been duly approved by the Head of the Department. Objection taken, as the one in the present case, creates serious doubt in the mind of the Court; whether such objections are bonafide objections. We also take judicial notice of the fact that this Court is flooded with writ petitions filed by persons like the respondent, which is not something which the State should encourage, rather such grievance should be redressed at the State's end. 8. Through this order, in the instant Letters Patent Appeal, we direct the Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand to issue appropriate guidelines to the revenue officials including, Circle Officers in respect of cancellation of Jamabandi, rent receipts, correction slip etc. We grant 8 weeks' time for this purpose. 9. The net result is that I.A. No. 3439 of 2016 for condonation of delay stands dismissed having no substance in it, resultantly the appeal which otherwise is devoid of any merit in it stands dismissed. We grant 8 weeks' time for this purpose. 9. The net result is that I.A. No. 3439 of 2016 for condonation of delay stands dismissed having no substance in it, resultantly the appeal which otherwise is devoid of any merit in it stands dismissed. However, Registrar General is directed to place the instant matter before us on 26.09.2016 to apprise the Court about the compliance of our directions as indicated in Para 8. 10. Registrar General to take note of it to ensure that the order is conveyed to the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand forthwith.