JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

We do not find any contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents/alleged contemnors. The contempt petition is dismissed.

2. Civil Appeal No. 2318/2014 is taken on Board.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. One main contention advanced by Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, is that Section 6 Notification is not issued within one year of Section 4 Notification and hence the proceedings have lapsed. We find it difficult to appreciate the submission. The learned Single Judge in W.P. No.4644/1988 passed the interim order dated 9.9.1988 for a period of three weeks but with a further direction to post the case on 23.09.1988, well within three weeks. However, the case was posted only on 14.11.1988 when the Court was pleased to continue “subsisting” interim order. In the facts and circumstances explained above, and as rightly held by the Division Bench, the interim order had to be deemed to be existing as on the date of extension. Yet another serious argument is for public purpose. However, it is not in dispute that the acquisition is for educational purposes.

5. We also find that after the Land Acquisition Collector passed t