R. RAMANUJAM, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned government Pleader for Revenue. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the demand of the 2nd respondent Mandal Revenue Officer demanding wet land revenue for the lands possessed and cultivated by the petitioners, the present writ petition is filed. ( 3 ) THE petitioners herein are the joint owners of the lands admeasuring Ac. 34-38 guntas in S. Nos. 45/2, 69, 70 to 74 and 78 of Jogapur village, Nennal Mandal, Adilabad district. They were cultivating these lands by erecting a cross-bund to a spring channel that was passing besides their lands. These lands were being treated as dry lands by the Revenue authorities and the petitioners were paying land revenue accordingly. However, during the year 1971-72, when the Tahsildar, Chennur sought to collect wet land revenue for these lands, the petitioners approached the Jama Bandi officer. The Jama Bandi Officer, on a consideration of the material on record, held that the petitioner need not pay wet land revenue and directed collection of only dry land revenue. Thereafter, only dry land revenue was collected from the petitioners. However, the Tahsildar, Chennur issued a show-cause notice on 22-7-1980 calling upon the petitioners as to why the lands should not be treated as wet lands and wet land revenue should not be collected. The petitioners then submitted their explanation on 12-8-1980 explaining as to why wet land revenue cannot be collected. After considering the explanation and also after conducting personal inspection, the Tahsildar, Chennur passed orders on 21-2-1981 under Section 4 (1) of the Andhra pradesh Land Revenue (Enhancement) act, 1967 (for short the Act ) holding that the cross-bound across the channel was constructed by their own cost. He accordingly declared that the lands in question are dry lands under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, only dry land revenue was being collected. But, surprisingly, on 5-1-1989, the 2nd respondent has again demanded wet land revenue. That demand is now under challenge in this writ petition. ( 4 ) FROM the above narration of facts, it is clear that the competent authority, i. e. , the Tahsildar, Chennur, has already declared under Section 4 (1) of the Act that the lands in question are not wet lands. That order obviously has become final. That demand is now under challenge in this writ petition. ( 4 ) FROM the above narration of facts, it is clear that the competent authority, i. e. , the Tahsildar, Chennur, has already declared under Section 4 (1) of the Act that the lands in question are not wet lands. That order obviously has become final. It is galso not in dispute that subsequent to that order, there is no change in the nature of source of irrigation. That being so, in my considered view, the 2nd respondent has no authority to demand wet land revenue from the petitioners. However, the learned government Pleader for Revenue states that there was a proposal during the year 1987-88 to change the classification of lands for the purpose of collection of land revenue from dry to wet and further submits that the proposal was also sanctioned by the Jama Bandi Officer. I fail to understand as to how such a proposal was made and approved in the face of an order made by the competent authority on 21-2-1981 under Section 4 (1) of the Act declaring the lands as not wet lands. As already noted, that order has become final and that cannot be varried or modified, unless there is a change in the nature of source of irrigation. ( 5 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed without costs. A writ of mandamus is issued declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in demanding wet land revenue for the lands in question as illegal and void.