Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks writ of Certiorarified mandamus to quash the orders of the respondents 1 and 2 in G.O.Ms.No.261, Housing and Urban Development (Vee.Va) 5(1) Department, dated 210. 2002 and direct the respondents to adopt market value for the property instead of guideline value. 2. The brief facts which lead to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: (i) The Petitioners property is situated in between Plot No.X89 and X90, Town Survey No.8 part and 44 part in Block No.12 of Ayanavaram Village, Corporation Block No.L in Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anna Nagar Scheme, Chennai. This area was originally utilized for disposal of storm water and sewage water to adjacent otterynulla. Subsequently under ground sewage/drainage system separately executed for the area around this land resulting the land become idle and the Petitioner encroached the above said land. (ii) Petitioner gave a petition dated 4. 1990 to Tamil Nadu Housing Board seeking allotment of this land. But the TNHB has rejected his request by its order dated 28. 1990 for allotment of this land stating the reason that the land situated near the rain water channel of Otteri. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.17038 of 1992, which was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 112. 1999, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner. (iii) Based on the order, the TNHB Passed resolution vide B.R.No.9.04 dated 38. 2000 for allotting the above said land to petitioner and sent to Government for approval. The Government in its order vide G.O.Ms.No.261, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 210. 2002 directed the TNHB to allot the said land to the Petitioner at the rate of Rs.2212/- per Sq.ft. The said Government Order is the subject matter of question in the Writ Petition. 3. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.A.Sivaji contended that guideline value will be taken as a factor while fixing the market value of the property and other purposes and it cannot be considered as the sole basis for fixing the market value of the property. It was further contended that the value fixed by the Government would be far excessive and not valid in law. 4. Heard Mr. N. Senthil Kumar the learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr.A.Vijayakumar the learned counsel for Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 5. It was further contended that the value fixed by the Government would be far excessive and not valid in law. 4. Heard Mr. N. Senthil Kumar the learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr.A.Vijayakumar the learned counsel for Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 5. The learned counsel for Respondents submitted that the Petitioner has encroached TNHB property and he has no right to claim the land cost as higher. According to respondents, as per existing rule at the time of allotting the disputed land to the petitioner, Government passed G.O.Ms.No.261, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 210. 2002, to allot the land to the Petitioner at the rate of Rs.2212/-per Sq.ft. and the same cannot be challenged. 6. As per the existing rule, Government fixed the cost at Rs.2212/-per sq.ft. for the said land based on the guideline value in the year of 4/2002. On behalf of the respondents, it is stated that TNHB is fixing the rate based on the guideline value, market value and ruling rate whichever is higher. The government fixed the rate at Rs.2212/- per Sq.ft. based on the guideline value. While the Government has fixed the cost of the land based on the guideline value, market value and ruling rate whichever is higher, the grievance of the petitioner has no substance. Petitioner being the encroacher in the area earmarked for storm water and sewage water cannot insist upon the Government to fix a lower rate. 7. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that in the same area, the respondents have fixed Rs.4,38,000/- as the rate per ground pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.253, dated 7. 1998. Based on the said G.O., the third respondent has issued orders in Lr.No.P10/3721/98 dated 10. 1998 for Plot No.565/83, fixing the cost of the plot at Rs.4,38,000/- per ground and the same rate could have been adopted for the plot in question. It was therefore contended that the same rate could have been adopted for the plot in question and the respondents have fixed exorbitant rate for the plot allotted to the petitioner. 8. The above contention does not merit acceptance. According to the Respondents, the said plot allotted in the Government Order is not within the same area. The said Government Order was passed in the year 1998. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the recent past, land cost spiralled and the land cost have increased multifold. 8. The above contention does not merit acceptance. According to the Respondents, the said plot allotted in the Government Order is not within the same area. The said Government Order was passed in the year 1998. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the recent past, land cost spiralled and the land cost have increased multifold. Whileso, it is not open to the petitioner to seek comparison of the land cost of the year 1998 with the year 2002. The petitioner having been allotted the area, he cannot insist upon to fix a lower rate. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.