JUDGMENT N.K. Jain, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Bapurao, an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), calls in question the two orders (annexures B and C) made by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, purporting to act under the provisions of Section 132 of the Act. 2. Pursuant to a warrant of authorisation issued by the D. I. T. (Investigation), Pune, respondent No. 1--Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inves-tigation)-purporting to act under Section 132(1) of the Act, conducted a search at the residential premises of the petitioner situated at 47, Gulmo-har Colony, Indore, on March 19, 1990, and March 20, 1990 (vide panch-nama annexure A). Respondent No. 1 was of the view that undisclosed investment has been made in certain immovable properties as enumerated in the order annexure B and since it was not practical or feasible to take possession of the those properties, he passed prohibitory order annexure B under Section 132(1) of the Act directing the petitioner not to part with or dispose of the said properties without his permission. Respondent No. 2 to whom a jurisdiction under Section 132 was later on transferred, after necessary enquiry as envisaged under Section 132(5), on July 16, 1990, passed impugned order annexure C endorsing the order annexure B and directing retention of the said immovable properties. 3. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders as without jurisdiction. It was contended that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had no jurisdiction under Section 132 to seize or retain any immovable property as according to the petitioner Section 132 in terms applies to only movables like books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things found as a result of such search. 4. As against it, the respondents/Revenue have supported the impugned action and contended that immovable properties also fell within the ambit of Section 132. A preliminary objection was also taken that the petitioner before moving this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, ought to have exhausted alternative remedy as provided under Sub-section (11) of Section 132 of the Act. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the provisions of Section 132, I am clearly of the view that the entire action taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was without jurisdiction. 6. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the provisions of Section 132, I am clearly of the view that the entire action taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was without jurisdiction. 6. Clause (B) of Section 132(1) provides for the action which the authorised officer may take in exercise of his power of search and seizure under Section 132(1). It authorises him to : "132. (l)(B)(i) enter and search any building, place, vessels, vehicle or aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are kept ; (ii) break open the lock. .... (iia) search any person ..... (iii) seize any such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found as a result of such search ; (iv) place marks of identification .... (v) make a note ....." 7. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would show that while the authorised officer has power to enter and search any building, place, vessel or aircraft, he can seize only the books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing kept therein. He has no power to seize the building and the place itself which he has searched or other immovable properties of the assessee. Needless to add the order of retention under Sub-section (5) of Section 132 can be made only in respect of things and articles seized under Sub-section (1) not with respect to the building or the place searched. There is absolutely nothing in Section 132 which may authorise the officer to seize or retain any immovable property. 8. In Sardar Ptmhunaii Sinyh v. Union of India [1987] 166 ITR 115, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that (page 121) the "scope of Section 132 was limited to articles and things mentioned in Sub-section (1), the section does not include within its ambit immovable properties . . ." I respectfully agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court as no other interpretation of Section 132 is possible. 9. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned orders annexures B and C are quashed. 10. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Security deposit, if any, be refunded to the petitioner after verification.