ORDER : (Krishna S. Dixit, J.) Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the acquisition proceedings inter alia on the ground that the scheme in question having not been executed within the prescribed statutory period of five years, land should be restored to them. Petitioners have also invoked provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, for voiding the impugned notifications. 2. After service of notice, Respondents having entered appearance through the learned AGA have filed Statement of Objections on 24.01.2019 resisting the Writ Petition. Learned AGA contends that the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be invoked inasmuch as, the possession of the land having been taken on 14.09.1992, the Housing Scheme is also executed by the Housing Society for whose benefit the acquisition was made. He also seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition for not impleading the beneficiary namely BEML Housing Co-operative Society as respondent to the Petition. Lastly, he contends delay & latches in approaching the Court. 3. Having heard and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) the Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 26.03.1990; it was followed by the Final Notification issued under section 6(1) on 12.08.1991; award came to be passed on 29.10.1992. Possession having been taken on 14.09.1992, the Notification has also been issued under Section 16(2). This Writ Petition is filed on 12.01.2016. Thus, there is enormous delay & latches which remain unexplained and therefore, no relief can be granted to tardy and sleepy litigants; (b) The award at internal page 3 itself mentions that the "BEML Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore" is the beneficiary of acquisition. A copy thereof is produced by the Petitioners themselves at Annexure-F2. That being the position, they ought to have impleaded the said Society as a Respondent. No explanation is offered from non-impleadment of this necessary party. Where the land is acquired for the benefit of a Co-operative Housing Society, if the scheme is substantially executed, the question of lapsing does not arise as held by this Court in a catena of decisions. No explanation is offered from non-impleadment of this necessary party. Where the land is acquired for the benefit of a Co-operative Housing Society, if the scheme is substantially executed, the question of lapsing does not arise as held by this Court in a catena of decisions. Even otherwise, in the absence of a necessary party like the Housing Society, the contention of the kind cannot addressed by the Writ Court. (c) The contention of the Petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the compensation having not been paid cannot be countenanced in view of latest decision of the of Apex Court in, Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority And Anr. v. Ram Newaj And Others, 2020 (8) SCC 129 , inasmuch as the compensation is stated to have been deposited. In view of the above, writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.