S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) BY the impugned order dated 4-9-1996, the 1st respondent purporting to rely upon a decision of this Court in Writ petition No. 2965 of 1989 dated 21-4-1993 as also the instructions of the Commissioner of land Revenue, Government of Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad, inter alia, held that the said revisional order dated 28-3-1994 was not correct and the demand notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Inspector dated 10-10-1993 should be upheld. Questioning the correctness of the said order, this writ petition has been filed. ( 3 ) TWO questions have been raised at the bar in this writ petition, which are:- (1) whether, having regard to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural lands Assessment Act, 1963 (A. P. Act 14 of 1963) (hereinafter called and referred for the sake of brevity as nala ), the 1st respondent could have taken recourse to the provisions of Section 166-B (2) of the land Revenue Act and (2) Whether, in any event, having regard to the decision of the apex Court in the Federation of Andhra pradesh Chambers vs. A. P. , the impugned order can be sustained. ( 4 ) THE Non-Agricultural Lands assessment Act was enacted for the levy of assessment on lands used for non-agricultural purposes. The said Act is a self- contained Code. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, procedures have been laid down for levy of assessment on non- agricultural lands where against and in the event of determination thereof, an appeal and a revision would be maintainable, as contained in Sections 5 and 6 thereof. The land Revenue Act, however, was enacted to amend and consolidate the orders and regulations relating to land revenue. ( 5 ) THE Non-Agricultural. Lands assessment Act is a subsequent statute. It, as noticed hereinbefore, is a self-contained code. Pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof, a right has been conferred upon the state to impose levies on non-agricultural lands. It is, therefore, evident that as there exists a provision for filing a revision application against the appellate order in terms of Section 6 thereof, the 1st respondent herein could not have passed the impugned order by assuming jurisdiction under the Land Revenue Act. It is, therefore, evident that as there exists a provision for filing a revision application against the appellate order in terms of Section 6 thereof, the 1st respondent herein could not have passed the impugned order by assuming jurisdiction under the Land Revenue Act. In terms of Section 6 of NALA, the Revenue divisional Officer has been granted jurisdiction to revise the order passed by the appellate authority either suo motu or on an application made to him by the persons aggrieved. In terms of the provisions of the nala, the revisional order had attained finality which could not have been reopened by the 1st respondent herein in exercise of his purported revisional jurisdiction under Section 166-B (2) of the land Revenue Act. The 1st respondent, therefore, clearly acted wholly illegally and without jurisdiction. Such an order being a nullity, thus, cannot be sustained. Further more, the decision of the Revenue divisional Officer is in consonance with the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case reported in Federation of Andhra pradesh Chambers (supra ). The effect of the said decision is that assessment can be made for levy of non-agricultural tax only in respect of such lands which are actually being used for non-agricultural purposes and not other lands which are appertaining/surrounding. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 4-9-1996 is set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.