6. On a careful reading of the order impugned, this Court is satisfied that even if the facts narrated by the writ petitioner to be taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the petitioner enjoys the status of a tenant and further it is pertinent to note that though ample opportunity had been given, no acceptable evidence to establish the relevant facts had been placed before the authorities concerned and even otherwise on a careful analysis of the order impugned, this Court is satisfied that the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multizone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada – respondent No.1, had taken into consideration all the facts and recorded a positive finding that the appellant to be termed as an encroacher within the meaning of Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987. Hence, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, whatsoever, and accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
