Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the notification No. A2.744/92 of the 4th respondent and seeking a further direction restraining the respondents from taking any action pursuant to the said notification including dispossession of the petitioners from the shop rooms occupied by them. A declaration is also sought for to the effect that "the notification containing proposed acquisition published in the Kerala Gazette on 8.5.95 is hit by the proviso to S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 and therefore, the said notification and all the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are nonest and unsustainable in law. 2. Thus the case of the petitioners is that the land acquisition proceedings cannot be proceeded with as it had elapsed in terms of the proviso to S.6 of the Act. The proviso to S.6 reads as follows : "Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under S.4, sub-s.(1), - (i) xxx (ii) Published after the commentment of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification". The petitioners submit that S.4(1) notification was published in the Gazette on 1.3.1994 and published in two local dailies on 17.2.94 and 15.2.94. It is also the case of the petitioners that public notice seen made as per Ext. P1 on 26.7.94. Later S.6 declaration was published in the Gazette on 8.5.95, obviously after one year from corresponding publication of the S.4(1) notification in the Gazette. The petitioners contend that publication of S.6 declaration in the local dailies was on 25.5.1995. That also is beyond one year of the corresponding publication of S.4(1) notification in the local dailies. The petitioners also contend that the publication of S.6 declaration in the locality was on 31.7.95. That is also according to the petitioners beyond one year from toe date of Ext. P1, the public notice regarding S.4(1) notification. Therefore, S.6 declaration was beyond one year and the acquisition proceedings cannot be proceeded, with. 3. The petitioners also contend that the publication of S.6 declaration in the locality was on 31.7.95. That is also according to the petitioners beyond one year from toe date of Ext. P1, the public notice regarding S.4(1) notification. Therefore, S.6 declaration was beyond one year and the acquisition proceedings cannot be proceeded, with. 3. S.6(2) provides that every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily news papers circulating in the locality in which the land is situated and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient place in the said locality. It is also provided in that sub-section that, "the last of the dates of such publication and giving of such public notice being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the declaration". The last among the date of publication of S.6 declaration pointed out by the petitioners is 31.7.95. The petitioners cite this date on the strength of Ext. P5 award. It is mentioned in the award that publication of S.6 declaration was made in the locality "dated 31.7.95". Therefore, it is made after one year from Ext. P1, the petitioners submit. 4. Ext. P1 only shows thats, that public notice was finalised and dated on 26.7.94. The date relevant is the date of giving of such public notice of Ext. P1. When Ext. P1 is finalised in the office of the Collector on 26.7.94, certainly its publication shall be later than that. It is contended by the Government Pleader that publication of notice in the locality regarding S.4(1) was on 8.8.94. Government Pleader points out this date from the counter affidavit filed by the Special Tahsildar in O.P. 1220/97 relating to the very same acquisition. The petitioners also now concede before me that the publication in the locality had been effected on 8.8.94; but the date of Ext. P1 is relevant in order to compute the time limit. The date mentioned in Ext. P1 is the date of that public notice and not the date of giving such public notice. Therefore, the petitioner cannot rely on the date of Ext. P1 to compute the period of one year in terms of the said proviso. The period will commence from the date of giving Ext. P1 public notice in the locality. It is on 8.8.94. Therefore, the petitioner cannot rely on the date of Ext. P1 to compute the period of one year in terms of the said proviso. The period will commence from the date of giving Ext. P1 public notice in the locality. It is on 8.8.94. From that date, it is within one year that S.6 declaration had been published in the locality, admittedly by the petitioners, on 31.7.95. So, the acquisition proceedings are not hit by the proviso mentioned above. Therefore, challenge against such proceedings fails. 5. As per S.4, the relevant date of publication of notification is the last among the several dates of three modes of publications. Same is the case with reference to the date of publication of S.6 declaration. Such dates are 8.8.94 and 31.7.95 respectively and are within one year. So, the acquisition proceedings are not hit by the proviso to S.6 as contended by the petitioner. It is submitted by the petitioners that the acquisition is at the instance of 5th respondent Municipality and the Municipality is providing alternate accommodation to the persons like the petitioners, when the shops are acquired. The 5th respondent shall consider the case of the petitioners if they make an application within two weeks from today in that regard pointing out the vacant municipal shop rooms. Orders shall be passed, after hearing them, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of such application. Original Petition is disposed of.