ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Bettiah Estate who has also filed counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 6 i.e. Manager, Bettiah Estate. 2. Petitioner is a settlee of lands by the Manager, Bettiah Estate. The settlement was made to him on payment of ` 600/- per acre per year as lease rent, as would appear from the receipt granted in favour of the petitioner contained in Annexure-1 series. The Clerk granting the receipt dated 21.10.2003 and 29.1.2008 mentioned in the receipt that petitioner is paying crop charges instead of lease rent. The Board of Revenue is managing the properties of the Bettiah Estate in terms of the provisions of the Court of Wards Act, 1879. The Court of Wards i.e. Board of Revenue under its decision bearing Memo No. 892(2) dated 2.8.2007, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit resolved to revise the lease rent from ` 600/- to ` 2000/- per acre per year. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid decision of the Board of Revenue by filing CWJC No. 13509 of 2008 asserting that the revision of the lease rent from ` 600/- to ` 2000/- per acre per year is wholly arbitrary. This Court under orders dated 20.9.2011, Annexure-5 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition directing the petitioner to represent before the Board of Revenue that the revision of lease rent from ` 600/- to ` 2000/- per acre per year is excessive and has been made without appreciating that agriculture operation is hardly productive so as to enable the lessee to pay yearly land rent of ` 2000/-. In compliance of the order of the High Court dated 20.9.2011, Annexure-5, petitioner submitted his representation enclosing the per acre expense incurred in cultivating one acre of land. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner with reference to the said calculation chart of income earned, Annexure-6 that revision of lease rent from ` 600/- to ` 2000/- per acre per year is not only excessive, but highly arbitrary, imperialistic and colonial in character violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it was during the British Rule the land rent used to be revised in such proportion. Land rent of the lands in question payable by the Bettiah Estate to the Government has not been revised yet the Board of Revenue has revised the lease rent in such arbitrary proportion. Land rent of the lands in question payable by the Bettiah Estate to the Government has not been revised yet the Board of Revenue has revised the lease rent in such arbitrary proportion. The Board of Revenue considered the aforesaid representation of the petitioner and rejected the same. The rejection order has been communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary of the Board of Revenue under Memo bearing No. 1405 dated 19.12.2011, Annexure-7, which has been impugned in the present writ petition again on the same ground that there is no rationale behind the revision of the lease rent from ` 600/- to ` 2000/- per acre per year. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 19.12.2011, Annexure-7 is further bad for the reason that neither the impugned order dated 19.12.2011, Annexure-7 nor the Minutes of the Board of Revenue dated 6.7.2007 bearing Memo No. 892(2) dated 2.8.2007 contain any reason for arbitrary revision of lease rent from ` 600/- to ` 2000/- per acre per year. 3. Counsel for the Bettiah Estate submitted that Bettiah Estate being an estate managed by the Board of Revenue is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the Bettiah Estate in support of the aforesaid submission relied upon on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of State of Bihar Vrs. Radha Krishna Singh and others, reported in (1983) 3 SCC 118 , paragraph 276 and submitted that the properties of the Bettiah Estate is only being managed by the Court of Wards but as the properties are private properties, it is the discretion of the Manager, Bettiah Estate to revise the rent to earn maximum profit for the property owners. 4. 4. Counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submitted that true it is that the properties of the Bettiah Estate is being managed by the Court of Wards i.e. the Board of Revenue, but the Court of Wards being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as it is statutory authority within the territory of India, its order is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and as the impugned order does not provide for any reason in support of the revision of lease rent from ` 600/- to ` 2000/- per acre per year, the same is reflective of imperialistic character and colonial mind set and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. 5. The representation of the petitioner assailing such revision has been rejected under order dated 19.12.2011, Annexure-7 perhaps in the light of the Memo No. 892 (2) dated 2.8.2007, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The revision of lease rent by the Court of Wards/ Board of Revenue under decision dated 2.8.2007, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit from ` 600 per acre per year to ` 2000 per acre per year is not only excessive but imperialistic in nature and reflective of colonial mind set as there is hardly any justification for revision of lease rent of the lands of Bettiah Estate when there has been no increase of the land rent of the lands in question payable by the Bettiah Estate to the Government. In my view, therefore, both order dated 19.12.2011, Annexure-7 and Memo dated 2.8.2007, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, both the decision dated 2.8.2007, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit so far it relates to revision of lease rent and the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 19.12.2011, Annexure-7 to the writ petition are quashed. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.