JUDGMENT Shantanu Kemkar, J. The petitioner's premises was subjected to search on the basis of warrant of authorisation issued under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). During the course of search and seizure as per order dated 20/28-6-2012 (Annexure P-2) and the Annexure A attached to it, his immovable properties namely agricultural lands and plots total 14 in numbers were placed under deemed seizure on the strength of Second Proviso to Section 132(1) of the Act. 2. Aggrieved by the order of attachment and seizure of his immovable properties, the petitioner submitted an application dated 28-2-2013 (Annexure P-8) before the Deputy Director of Investigation, Income-tax, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (the first respondent) making him request for release of the attached immovable properties. However, as the same was not released, the petitioner submitted yet another application on 22-3-2013 (Annexure P-4) reiterating his prayer for release of the immovable properties. Since the first respondent did not pay any heed to his prayer, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking release of the attached immovable properties. 3. Shri Sumit Nema, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that during the search and seizure, the action of attaching the petitioner's immovable properties is without jurisdiction, as while exercising the powers under Section 132 dealing with the search and seizure, the immovable property cannot be attached and seized. He also argued that under Second Proviso of Section 132B(1)(i) of the Act, the respondents were required to have released the properties within 120 days from the date on which the last of the authorisations for search, was executed and having not released the properties even after lapse of more than 120 days of execution of last authorisation, the properties are liable to be released. 4. The respondents have filed reply and have justified the action of seizure of the petitioner's immovable properties by placing reliance on the Second Proviso to Section 132(1) of the Act. 5. According to Shri R.L. Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, Second Proviso to Section 132(1) of the Act expressly empowers the Authorised Officer to serve an order of deemed seizure on the owner/possessor/controller of the assets, which cannot be removed to a safe place due to its volume, weight or other physical characteristics. 5. According to Shri R.L. Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, Second Proviso to Section 132(1) of the Act expressly empowers the Authorised Officer to serve an order of deemed seizure on the owner/possessor/controller of the assets, which cannot be removed to a safe place due to its volume, weight or other physical characteristics. He argued that the immovable properties including the lands, which fall under the category of such assets can be placed under deemed seizure. He also argued that as provided in the First Proviso of Section 132B(1)(i), the petitioner having not applied for release of the seized property within 30 days from the end of the month in which the assets were seized, the properties were not liable to be released even after expiry of 120 days. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considered the averments made in the petition and in the return. 7. Section 132(1) and (1-A) of the Act are relevant to decide the controversy as to whether the action of the respondents to seize the immovable properties of the petitioner while making search and seizure is justified or not. Section 132(1) provides for issuance of the authorisation by the authorities named in the section to the authorities mentioned in the section. Section 132(1) and (1-A) of the Act are relevant to decide the controversy as to whether the action of the respondents to seize the immovable properties of the petitioner while making search and seizure is justified or not. Section 132(1) provides for issuance of the authorisation by the authorities named in the section to the authorities mentioned in the section. It empowers the Authorised Officer to:-- (i) enter and search any building, place, vessel, 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 of any door, box, locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle for exercising the powers conferred by clause (i) where the keys thereof are not available; (ii-a) search any person who has got out of, or is about to get into, or is in the building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft, if the Authorised Officer has reason to suspect that such person has secreted about his person any such books of account, other document, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing; (ii-b) require any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account or other documents maintained in the form of electronic record as defined in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of the Section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), to afford the Authorised Officer the necessary facility to inspect such books of account or other documents; (iii) seize any such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or the valuable article or thing found as a result of such search: Provided that bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, being stock-in-trade of the business, found as a result of such search shall not be seized but the Authorised Officer shall make a note or inventory of such stock-in-trade of the business; (iv) place marks of identification on any books of account or other documents or make or cause to be made extracts or copies therefrom; (v) make a note or an inventory of any such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing: Provided that were any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft referred to in clause (i) is within the area of jurisdiction of any Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, but such Chief Commissioner or Commissioner has no jurisdiction over the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section120, it shall be competent for him to exercise the powers under this sub-section in all cases, where he has reason to believe that any delay in getting the authorisation from the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner having jurisdiction over such person may be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue: Provided further that where it is not possible or practicable to take physical possession of any valuable article or thing and remove it to as a safe place due to its volume, weight or other physical characteristics or due to its being of a dangerous nature, the Authorised Officer may serve an order on the owner or the person, who is in immediate possession or control thereof that he shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with it, except with the previous permission of such Authorised Officer and such action of the Authorised Officer shall be deemed to be seizure of such valuable article or thing under clause (iii): Provided also that nothing contained in the second proviso shall apply in case of any valuable article or thing, being stock-in-trade of the business: Provided also that no authorisation shall be issued by the Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, unless he has been empowered by the Board to do so. Section 132(1-A) provides:-- Where any Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to suspect that any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing in respect of which an officer has been authorised by the Director General or Director or any other Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner to take action under clauses (i) to (v) of sub-section (1) are or is kept in any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft not mentioned in the authorisation under sub-section (1), such Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 120, authorise the said office to take action under any of the clauses aforesaid in respect of such building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft. 8. On close reading the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear that Second Proviso of Section 132(1) enables the Authorised Officer, where it is not possible or practicable to take physical possession of any valuable article or thing and remove it to a safe place due to its volume, weight or other physical characteristics or due to its being dangerous in nature to serve an order on the owner or a person, who is in immediate possession or control thereof that he shall not remove part or otherwise deals with it except with the previous permission of such Authorised Officer, such action of the Authorised Officer shall be deemed to be seizure of such valuable article or thing under clause (iii). However, in the present case, the respondents in their return have not come with a case that there is any valuable article or thing described in clause (iii) of Section 132(1) such as books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery and other valuable article or thing found as a result of such, search is of a nature that it is not possible or practicable to take physical possession of the same and remove to a safe place due to its volume, weight or other physical characteristics or due to its being of a dangerous nature necessitating the seizure of petitioner's immovable properties, which are agricultural lands and the plots described in the Schedule A. When such is not the case of the respondents, in our considered view, their action of seizure of the immovable properties, which are in the nature of agricultural lands and open plots is wholly without any authority of law and cannot be sustained. The exercise of powers of deemed seizure in the present case is wholly misconceived and is not authorised by law. When the respondents have failed to make out any case of impossibility or impracticability as per the requirement of Second Proviso of Section 132(1), taking the recourse of the provision of deemed seizure of the petitioner's immovable properties is wholly unwarranted. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid, the impugned action of seizure of the petitioner's immovable properties is liable to be and is hereby quashed. The petitioner's immovable properties be released from attachment forthwith. 10. Since we have quashed the impugned action of seizure of petitioner's immovable properties, we do not feel it necessary to deal with the other question raised in this writ petition regarding non-release of the assets within 120 days. 11. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed, with no orders as to the costs. C.C. within 3 days.