JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying for a direction upon the concerned respondent to immediately unblock the portal for acceptance of online land revenue and accept the same on the portal of the respondent authorities maintained for the said purpose. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the subject matter of this petition is related to land which were transferred back in the year 1926 and 1939 through registered sale deed. The ancestors of the petitioners after transfer of land have regularly paid the land revenue rent and it was being accepted by the respondent authorities till the year 2011-12 which is evident from revenue rent receipts dated 17.03.2011 and 10.12.2011 (Annexure 3). Thereafter, due to financial difficulties, they could not deposit the land revenue. Recently, when the petitioners tried to make payment on the online portal, the option for the payment has been disabled by the respondent authorities (Annexure 4 series). When the petitioners approached the Circle Officer, Chandrapura for acceptance of rent, the respondent authorities informed that no rent would be accepted because the land is in nature of Gairmazurwa. 3. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the land in question was transferred in favour of Dukhu Mia vide registered sale deed no. 1506 dated 28.09.1926 (Annexure 5 series of Supplementary Affidavit) and Plot No. 250, 404, 405 that was transferred in favour of Ismail Mia vide registered sale deed no. 3704 dated 23.11.1939 which was further mutated in the name of sons of Ismail Mia and Bajir Mia as such the respondent authorities are not justified in not accepting the land revenue from the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities in resorting to blocking of the payment option are trying to achieve indirectly as in law they are not entitled to interfere with long standing Jamabandi unilaterally. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel of the respondents submits that the prayer made in writ petition is not maintainable, as land in question is recorded in Khatiyan as Gair Mazarua Land, although the said Khatiyan is in torn condition. Hence, the rent cannot be collected. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel of the respondents submits that the prayer made in writ petition is not maintainable, as land in question is recorded in Khatiyan as Gair Mazarua Land, although the said Khatiyan is in torn condition. Hence, the rent cannot be collected. Learned counsel further submits that from perusal of Sale Deed No. 1506 dated 15.09.1926, it transpires that in sale deed it is mentioned as land in Gair Mazarua but under what capacity/authority vendors have executed said sale deed is not mentioned. Moreover, the order of mutation and issuance of rent receipt are not available in the office in the record of Circle Officer, Chandrapura. He contended that the land in question is Gair Mazarua Land which is vested in the State Government after abolition of Zamindari and the writ petitioners have no right, title and interest and possession over the land in question. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein; it appears that the land ad-measuring 7 acres 20 decimals under Khata No. 47; Plot No. 353, 404 under Mauza Pipradih, Thana No.107, Halka No. 04, Anchal Chandrapura, District Bokaro having holding no. 47 was transferred in favour of Dukhu Mia vide registered sale deed no. 1506 dated 28.09.1926 (Annexure 1) and land ad-measuring 10 acres 24 decimals under Khata No. 47, Plot No. 250, 404, 405 under Mauza Pipradih, Thana No.107, Halka No. 04, Anchal Chandrapura, District Bokaro having holding no. 47 was transferred in favour of Ismail Mia vide registered sale deed no. 3704 dated 23.11.1939. It further transpires from record that parcels of aforesaid land (property in dispute) have been mutated in the name of sons of Dukhu Mian namely Ismail Mia and Bajir Mia which was further mutated in the name of sons of Ismail Mia and Bajir Mia which is evident from Register- II available on the website of Land Record Department. Further the land revenue has been continuously accepted by the respondent authorities till the year 2011-12. Thereafter, the option for making payment of land revenue has been disabled by the respondent authorities on the ground that the land is in nature of gairmazurwa and hence no rent can be accepted. 6. Further the land revenue has been continuously accepted by the respondent authorities till the year 2011-12. Thereafter, the option for making payment of land revenue has been disabled by the respondent authorities on the ground that the land is in nature of gairmazurwa and hence no rent can be accepted. 6. This Court fails to understand as to which provision of the law empowers the Circle Officer to determine the title to the land. The land has been in continuous peaceful possession of the ancestors of the petitioners which was transferred through a registered sale deed and was mutated in the name of ancestors of petitioners and rent was also accepted by the respondent authorities till 2011-12; then how after so many years, the Circle Officer decided to interfere with the long standing Jamabandi of the land belonging to the ancestors of petitioners. The doctrine of separation of powers, preclude the Circle Officer, who is a member of the Executive branch of the Government from exercising judicial powers. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the Circle Officer cannot unilaterally determine the title of the land in dispute as only the civil court of competent jurisdiction can do so. Reliance is being placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and Anr. , [ (1982) 2 SCC 134 ] , wherein it has been categorically held that if there is a bonafide dispute regarding title of the government to any property, government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it. This can be very much summarised by the legal maxim ‘ nemo judex in causa sua ’ meaning thereby that no one can be a judge in his own case. Further this Hon’ble Court in State of Jharkhand v. Chancla Devi , L.P.A. No. 142 of 2010 with L.P.A. No. 307 of 2009 has categorically held that if the State Government is claiming the ownership upon the property in question, which is in possession of the original petitioners and which is in possession of the predecessor-in-title then Civil Suit is the only remedy available to the State. They cannot drag the citizens to be plaintiff. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below: “9. They cannot drag the citizens to be plaintiff. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below: “9. It appears from the facts of the case that the presumption on the part of the Halka Karamchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land is not permissible in the eyes of law. If the State Government is claiming the ownership upon the property in question, which is in possession of the original petitioners and which is in possession of the predecessor-in-title from 09.06.1942, the Civil Suit is the only remedy available with the State of Jharkhand. They cannot drag the citizens to be the plaintiff. The burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff. Burden of proof that the State is owner of the property in question lies upon the State Government. The defendant has to deny the allegations and nothing beyond that. There is vast difference between burden of proof for the plaintiff and for the defendant. The purchasers of the property by the registered sale deeds in the year 1992 from their predecessor-in-title Rang Nath Sahu, who is owner of the property from 09.06.1942, cannot be upset by a report of Halka Karamchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land. Prima- facie, no fraud has been played by the purchasers of the property who are the petitioners in the writ petitions. Likewise, prima-facie, Rang Nath Sahu is the owner of the property, looking to the revenue entry from 1995-1956. Thus, more than 30 years old entries and documents cannot be upset by or cannot be brushed aside by one line report of the Halka Karamchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land.....” Admittedly the possession of the ancestors of the petitioners is long standing as evidenced from the mutation orders and rent receipts. So, there can be a bonafide dispute of title and hence the state government should file a Civil Suit for declaration of title. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Hon’ble Court the concerned respondent authorities are directed to immediately unblock the portal for acceptance of online land revenue in relation to the parcels of land in dispute and accept the same on the portal maintained for the said purpose. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands allowed. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s if any also stand disposed of.