JUDGMENT :- This is another case, which demonstrates the vulnerability of the properties held by religious institutions in the State. Hitherto, we came across cases, where a tenant, whose lease had expired, refused to vacate the land and insisted that the procedure prescribed under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "the Act"), be adopted to resume possession of the land. In this case, the person, who on his own showing was inducted as a sub-tenant, by alleged lessee of the land held by Sri Kesavaswamyvari Devasthanam, Thallarevu, the first respondent herein, seeks protection under Section 83 of the Act. A fairly large extent of land held by the Devasthanam is said to have been leased to one Chilukuri Visweshwararao. Out of that, the petitioner is said to have been granted sublease for an extent of Acs.5.00 of land in survey No.410 of Polamurupadu Village of Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District, in the year 1995. Section 82 of Act 30 of 1987 brought about statutory termination of leases over agricultural lands held by religious institutions. The petitioner, on the one hand, claims the rights of a tenant and even has filed an application for being recognized as landless poor for availing the benefit under subsection (2) of Section 82 of the Act; and on the other hand, opposes the action of the respondents in trying to resume the land by pleading that he is not a tenant and answers the description of encroacher. He complains that the respondents are trying to resume the land, without having recourse to the procedure prescribed under Section 83 of the Act. The respondents filed counter-affidavit opposing the plea of the petitioner. It is stated that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the first respondent and that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 82 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, for recognizing him as landless poor, was dismissed on 08.06.2007 and even after receiving notice to vacate the premises, the petitioner is continuing in possession of the land. Heard Sri P.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned standing counsel for the respondent. The stand taken by the petitioner is somewhat fluid in nature and he tried to mould it to his convenience, depending on the circumstances. Heard Sri P.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned standing counsel for the respondent. The stand taken by the petitioner is somewhat fluid in nature and he tried to mould it to his convenience, depending on the circumstances. It is not in dispute that he was not inducted as tenant by the respondent and he is only a sub-lessee of one Chilukuri Vesweshwararao. All the same, the petitioner submitted an application under subsection (2) of Section 82 of the Act, wearing the mantle of a tenant. Ultimately, when the application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, started claiming that he is an encroacher. The petitioner is not consistent. He insists that he can be evicted only by having recourse to the procedure prescribed under Section 83 of the Act. In other words, he is very confident of stalling the efforts of the respondent for several years. It needs to be noted that Section 83 of the Act prescribes the procedure for removal of an encroacher and by itself, it does not confer any rights upon the person, who calls himself as an encroacher. It cannot be used as a device to perpetuate an undisputed illegality. Such a course would only encourage the lawlessness, than ensuring conformity with law. It is not out of place to mention that in N. Mallakanti v. Chennakesava Swamy Temple, Gargeyapuram Village, Kurnool 2004 (2) ALD 148 , this Court held that it is not necessary for the authorities under the Act to invoke the procedure under Section 83 of the Act, in case of a person, whose application for being recognized as landless poor, was rejected. It was mentioned that such a person can be evicted by having recourse to Sections 84 and 85 of the Act. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.