Judgment :- By this petition, under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur in Appeal No. NAP-36/Pinglai -/95-96, an appeal under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. 2] Facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition can be briefly stated thus. The petitioner is resident of Bhandara, having land bearing Khasara No. 198/1 and 198/3 admeasuring 4 acres, P.H.No.54, Mouja Village Pinglai and District: Bhandara. As the petitioner wanted to start Brass Industries on that land. He moved the office of the S.D.O. for grant of permission for non-agricultural Use. The case was registered and the S.D.O. had passed certain order. Accordingly the certificate to permit use of the land for nonagricultural purpose was also issued. Later on the matter was reopened on the query of the Audit Party as regards the nonagricultural assessment of this land. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhandara then in Revenue Case No. 6/NAP-36/87-88 of Pinglai passed order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.38,516/- as calculated in the said order. The order was then challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, Bhandara. The Additional Collector found that the appeal was barred by limitation and as such he rejected the appeal. 3] The matter was then taken up by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur. The Additional Commissioner, considered the matter on merits and passed the impugned order on 28.8.1997. 4] The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on judgment reported in 2004(1) Mh.l.J. 951 – Shobha wd/o Prakash Deshmukh & others ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, contended that once the non agricultural assessment was fixed, it could not be revised for 30 years in view of the provision of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and as such initial order of S.D.O. Bhandara, through which these appeals arose was incorrect. According to learned counsel, the appeal should have been decided by the Additional Collector on merits. But he has wrongly applied the law of limitation to reject this appeal. His further contention is that the Additional Commissioner, should not have decided the matter on merits as the merits of the matter were not considered by the Additional Collector, Bhandara. According to learned counsel, the appeal should have been decided by the Additional Collector on merits. But he has wrongly applied the law of limitation to reject this appeal. His further contention is that the Additional Commissioner, should not have decided the matter on merits as the merits of the matter were not considered by the Additional Collector, Bhandara. Therefore, according to him, at the most the matter could have been remanded by the learned Additional Commissioner, instead of deciding the same on merit. 5] Learned A.G.P. has however, supported the order of the learned Additional Commissioner. According to him, there was no revision of non agricultural assessment. Only because of the Auditor’s query some mistakes were directed to be rectified. According to him, Additional Commissioner has rightly considered the matter on merits instead of remanding the same and his order is final. 6] I have given anxious consideration to the above submissions of the parties. 7] It appears from the order passed by the S.D.O., Bhandara that the matter was reopened because of the query raised by the Audit Party. Some mistakes were noticed and therefore, the matter was rejected. On perusal of his order, it clearly appears that it was not a case of revision of the assessment, but it was a case of correction in the levy of the assessment. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non agricultural assessment can not be revised for 30 years, does not hold water. 8] Turning to the submission that the Additional Commissioner should have remanded the matter back for fresh consideration to the Additional Collector, I am inclined to accept this submission, inasmuch as the Additional Commissioner seems to have considered all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in the appeal. 9] The possible contention to be raised by the petitioner are considered by him and rightly. 10] In these circumstances, I do not find that there is any case made out for interference with the impugned order in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court under articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. As such the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.