Judgment :- In this Original Petition, petitioners pray for issue of a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ, direction or order, calling for the records leading to Ext.P20 declaration issued by 6th respondent and for some other incidental reliefs. 2. Petitioners are three co-owners of 541/2 cents of land comprised in R.S,16/2 and 16/3 B of Sreekantapuram Village in Taliparamba Taluk. 3. It is the petitioners' case that after the execution of the agreement of sale, petitioners entered into the property and put up basement for the construction of a shopping complex. According to petitioners, the property was situated in the heart of Sreekantapuram Town and was purchased by petitioners for putting up a three storied building for housing the shopping complex and the construction of the ground floor of the building was completed in July, 1988. It was further averred that they came to know that there was some attempt on the part of 3rd respondent to acquire the above said land. Petitioners filed Ext.P2 representation requesting to exempt the land from acquisition. Petitioners also filed another representation before the 3rd respondent, the Telecom District Engineer, Cannanore for the same purpose highlighting their objection to the proposed acquisition. It was pointed out in the above representations that suitable alternate sites are available in the locality for consideration at the rate of less than Rs.1,000/-per cent. Ext.P3 is the said representation. Petitioners thereafter received Ext.P4 communication from 3rd respondent, requesting petitioners not to press the Department for exemption of land from being acquired. 4. On receipt of Ext.P4, petitioners filed O.P.No.7669/88 before this Court. That was dismissed holding that the proceedings are only contemplated and there will be sufficient opportunity for petitioners to file their objections. Ext.P5 is the judgment. It is also the case of petitioners that by October, 1988, the construction of the ground floor as well as the first floor was completed and the Sub Registrar's Office was shifted to this building and it was numbered as SP VIII 38A of Sreekantapuram Panchayat. The certificate issued by the Panchayat to this effect is marked as Ext.P7. Ext.PS is a receipt in respect of the building tax issued by the Panchayat for the 2nd half of the year 1988-89. 5. The certificate issued by the Panchayat to this effect is marked as Ext.P7. Ext.PS is a receipt in respect of the building tax issued by the Panchayat for the 2nd half of the year 1988-89. 5. While matters stood so, the Special Tahsildar (Land acquisition) issued a notice under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land for construction of Telephone Exchange, Sreekantapuram. Ext.P9 is the said notice. Ext. P10 is a copy of 'Deshabhimani' daily in which the said notification was published. Petitioners filed objection, Ext. P11A appears that the Special Tahsildar (la), tellicherry sent Ext. P1Z letter referring the objections filed by petitioners to the Telecom District Manager, Taliparamba. Thereafter, 5th respondent issued notice under S.5 of Land Acquisition Act, calling upon the petitioners to appear for hearing on 28-6-1989. 6. It is the further case of petitioners that no order was passed after enquiry. It is alleged by petitioners that two rooms in the ground floor of the building were given to Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation for running'Maveli Store' fixing a monthly rent of Rs. l,050/ -per month. Petitioners also expressed their willingness to surrender 30 cents of land in R. S.16/5 for the construction of Telephone Exchange. Exts.P15 and P16 are the communications sent by petitioners. Exts. P17 to P19 are the receipts issued by Sreekantapuram Panchayat to the petitioners in respect of the building tax. A declaration dated 17-3-90 under S.6 of Land Acquisition Act was published in 'Mathrubhumi' and 'Deshabhimani' dailies dated 27-4-1990, declaring the intention of Government to acquire the land for the purpose of constructing the Telephone Exchange. Ext. P20 is the said publication. 7. In this Original Petition, petitioners have contended that in view of the construction of the shopping complex, the land acquisition proceedings taken are unsustainable. I do not find any substance in this contention. The objection filed by the petitioners was considered and was overruled and there is no substance in the contention that nothing happened after enquiry. Learned counsel next contended that S. 6 notification was not issued within the time permitted by law and therefore the entire land acquisition proceedings lapsed. He argued that S. 6 notification was last published in 'Deshabhimani' daily on 27-4-1989 and that is beyond the stipulated statutory period. 8. Learned counsel next contended that S. 6 notification was not issued within the time permitted by law and therefore the entire land acquisition proceedings lapsed. He argued that S. 6 notification was last published in 'Deshabhimani' daily on 27-4-1989 and that is beyond the stipulated statutory period. 8. In order to-appreciate the contention raised by learned counsel for petitioners, it will be profitable to refer to Proviso to S.6 of Land Acquisition Act which reads as follows: - "Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under 5. 4, sub-section (1): - (i) published after the commencement of Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the 'commencement of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification." 9. This is a case where S.4(1) notification was published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. In view of Clause (2) of Proviso to S.6 of Land Acquisition Act, no such declaration shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of S.4(1) notification. 10. Two separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of 3rd respondent and respondents 4 to 6. In para 5 of the counter affidavit of respondents 4 to 6, it is averred declaration was made on 17-3-90 and was published n the Kerala Gazette (Extra Ordinary) No. 287 dated 20-3-90 and in 'Mathrubhumi' daily on 3-5-1990 and in 'Deshabhimani' daily on 27-4-1990. 11. A reading of the relevant provisions will show that the crucial date in considering the statutory period in a case where S.4(1) notification was published, after the commencement of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894, is the date on which the declaration was made and not the date on which the declaration was published as contended by learned counsel. Clause 2 of the first proviso to S.6 would clearly indicate this. That being the position, the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the declaration was made out of time is untenable. 12. Clause 2 of the first proviso to S.6 would clearly indicate this. That being the position, the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the declaration was made out of time is untenable. 12. Learned counsel invited my attention to two decisions of this court in Nanappan Konthi v. District Collector (1989 (1) KLT 582) and Bhaskara Panicker v. State of Kerala (1991 (2) KLT 580). The earlier decision is by a single judge and it lays down that the last date of publication of the 3 modes mentioned in S.4 should be taken as the date of publication of notification under S.4(1). That does not deal with the question of the date, which is mentioned, in Clause 2 of the First Proviso to S.6. The Division Bench ruling in Bhaskara Panicker's case (supra) clearly lays down that the period of one year referred to in the second part of the Proviso to S.6(l) is to be counted from the date of publication of the notification under S.4(1) upto the date of making of the declaration under S.6(1), that is, upto the dale of signature of the Secretary to Government or of the duly authorised officer. Therefore, the rulings cited by counsel for petitioners are not of any help to the petitioners. 13. Learned counsel for petitioners then submitted that a building has been constructed in the plot. He also invited my attention to para.9 of the counter affidavit filed by 3rd respondent. It is stated therein that the petitioners' claim that the total area has been used for construction of shopping complex is not true to the facts and that only an area of 8 cents was used for construction of the building at the time of publication of S.4(l) notification. It is further stated that the Department will be satisfied with the remaining area of 42 cents after deducting the constructed area of 8 cents. In the light of this averment, learned counsel alternatively prayed for a direction to exempt the constructed area. I record the statement referred to above and order that if the petitioners file a representation to exempt the constructed area from acquisition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, that will be considered sympathetically by the authorities and appropriate orders will be passed. Original Petition is disposed of as above.