JUDGMENT : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1. Matter is part-heard. Today, learned Counsel for petitioners has tendered a pursis which brings on record fact of handing over actual possession to petitioners on 2/8/2017. 2. During arguments, our attention was invited to statement in paragraph no.7 of writ petition to urge that original owner of said land, namely, Prakash Bhaurao Chohatkar filed Regular Civil Suit No.24/2004 against respondents and present petitioner in which possession of Chohatkar was protected. With the result, from 2004 onwards the possession could not have been handed over to petitioners. After suit was disposed of there was appeal and after appeal a writ petition before this Court. According to learned Counsel for petitioners writ petition was dismissed in January, 2017. 3. The land of father of petitioners was acquired on 9/4/1986 and compensation amount of Rs.65,000/- was paid to him on 17/12/1986. 4. In terms of Section 16 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 father could have applied for alternate land to be given to him in benefit zone. Respondents state that such a notice was given to him and option was asked for within five days. He did not submit such option. Time was then extended but such option was not furnished and for the first time he filed application on 14/3/2001. However, then he had not deposited amount for alternate land and went on hunger strike on 4/2/2003. According to respondents, they handed over possession to petitioners on 24/10/2003. 5. Petitioners are daughters of said original owner, by name, Vinayakrao Khushalrao Dhule. Vinayakrao committed suicide on 10/10/2003 in the office of respondent no.5 – Sub Divisional Officer, Arvi because of his harassment. In present petition, compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death, amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for loss caused to petitioners because of not handing over actual possession and Rs.5,00,000/- towards solace has been asked for. There is also a prayer to issue direction to respondents to hand over actual possession. In view of possession receipt filed today this direction does not survive. 6. Record shows that in year 1991-92 Chalan in the sum of Rs.22,580/- was issued to Vinayakarao towards field Survey no.14 area 1.62 hectare of Mouza Antapur. It is towards occupation charges of said field. This amount has been deposited by Vinayakrao on 15/2/2003. On 10/3/2003 he was informed that Survey no.14 was wrongly recorded and it needed to be corrected. Record shows that in year 1991-92 Chalan in the sum of Rs.22,580/- was issued to Vinayakarao towards field Survey no.14 area 1.62 hectare of Mouza Antapur. It is towards occupation charges of said field. This amount has been deposited by Vinayakrao on 15/2/2003. On 10/3/2003 he was informed that Survey no.14 was wrongly recorded and it needed to be corrected. It was also stated that correction was bound to take some time and hence, Vinayakrao was requested to opt for some other Survey numbers. 7. Petitioners have produced before this Court a letter dated 6/10/1992 in which Vinayak claims that he met local leaders, namely, Babuji Mohod and M.P. Shri Ramchandraji Ghangare in relation to his problem. He has warned that if his problem was not solved by 30/10/1992 he would commit suicide. There is one more letter dated 12/12/2001 which is signed by several project affected persons including said Vinayak. They have pointed out that alternate lands were not taken into possession from original owners and not allotted to them. In communication dated 29/4/2003 Vinayak has mentioned that the possession of land was not taken from original owner and was not given to him. Here again he has mentioned field Survey no.14 (New no.17/2), area 1.62 Hectare. This correspondence therefore prima facie shows that in 1992 itself Vinayak had opted for field Survey no.14 area 1.62 Hectare of Mouza Antapur. There are several reports and this is not in dispute that this Vinayak has on 10/10/2003 committed suicide in office of respondent no.5 – Sub Divisional Officer for not getting possession of his land. 8. We have perused provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 (Maharashtra Act No. XXXII of 1989) which gives persons like Vinayak a right to grant of alternate land. Section 16 therein stipulates that eligible affected person has to apply to Collector in prescribed format for grant of land and he loses the right to it if he does not communicate willingness within period of 45 days or fails to deposit with Collector the occupancy price of said land. 9. Amount to be deposited towards occupancy price is 65% of the amount of compensation which he has received. It is not the case of petitioners that accordingly 65% of the amount of compensation was deposited by them. 9. Amount to be deposited towards occupancy price is 65% of the amount of compensation which he has received. It is not the case of petitioners that accordingly 65% of the amount of compensation was deposited by them. Though respondents have filed a reply giving necessary details in this respect on 15/7/2004 and pointed out time given to Vinayak and noncompliance on his part, there is no counter filed by petitioners disputing the same. 10. The allotment in favour of Vinayak is as per order dated 23/10/2003 under provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. By this order Vinayak was allotted land at village Antapur. The land mentioned is 1.62 Hectare of Survey no.14 (old) and 20 (new). 11. This order is after suicide of Vinayak. Possession receipt is obtained from petitioners on 24/10/2003. It records that both petitioners were present on spot and possession receipt is signed by both petitioners. Petitioner no.1 Ujjwala has below her signature endorsed request to hand over real possession. Petitioner no.2 has put a remark that possession only on paper was received. Petitioner no.2 has also cautioned that if in future any problem was faced, Government would be responsible. 12. It is in this backdrop Regular Civil Suit No.24/2004 filed by original owner Prakash Chohatkar, orders operating therein and adjudication by Appellate Authority or this Court which attained finality in January 2017 all become relevant. If interim orders operated, petitioners were aware that possession could not have been handed over. Even representation made by Vinayak shows that possession of land was not taken from real owners by State Government. State Government has pointed out in its reply that in order to ascertain the need of land in benefit zone for allotment to the persons like Vinayak, option was given to them at the time of payment of compensation. This option was not exercised. They have also pointed out that this initial time of five days given to Vinayak on 17/12/1986 was extended on four occasions, i.e., on 31/10/1985, 29/2/1988, 31/3/1990 and 31/10/1991. They have then pointed out that the Legislature Committee recommended consideration of application filed by Vinayak as per its recommendation dated 20/8/2001. Because of recommendation notice, was given to project affected persons including Vinayak and Vinayak for the first time, submitted application on 14/3/2001. 13. They have then pointed out that the Legislature Committee recommended consideration of application filed by Vinayak as per its recommendation dated 20/8/2001. Because of recommendation notice, was given to project affected persons including Vinayak and Vinayak for the first time, submitted application on 14/3/2001. 13. Though these facts do not appear to be countered, it appears that payment of Rs.22,580/- was made by Vinayak on 15/2/2003 only. Thus, till then officially respondents had nothing with them to allot any land to Vinayak. 14. In this situation, as the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 were not complied with by Vinayak within stipulated time, respondents cannot be blamed for not handing over the possession to him. It appears that later on because of insistence of Vinayak and similarly situated persons, independently steps were taken and State Government has in 2001, decided to allot the land to them. Obviously till then exact requirement of land from benefit zone in terms of above mentioned law was not worked out and perhaps therefore, possession also was not taken from real owners. 15. The petitioners could have pointed out to this Court correct possession by placing on record orders in civil suit and then orders passed by this Court in writ petition. Those steps have not been taken. 16. The fact that even at the time of death of Vinayak civil dispute was not resolved is apparent because ultimately as disclosed by petitioners, writ petition was dismissed by this Court in January, 2017 and thereafter possession has been given to petitioners on 2/8/2017. 17. Hence, for all these reasons no cognizance of prayer clauses (i) (ii) and (iv) can be taken. Prayer clause (iii) is already complied with because petitioners have received possession on 2/8/2017. 18. In the light of this discussion, we dismiss the writ petition. Rule stands discharged. No costs.