ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI, J.

1. The petitioner is a senior citizen and a widow belonging to Scheduled Castes. Her son abandoned her rendering her vulnerable. She is seeking a direction to the Government to take all steps to put her back in possession of her house-property. The facts of the case in brief are that the house bearing No.254, Indira Harijan Sev Sangha, New Byappanahalli, Indiranagar, Bangalore was allotted to her family by the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board around the year 1980. To meet the medical expenses of her son, she was compelled to borrow Rs. 30,000/- from a local money-lender, Karunakaran (respondent No.5 herein). But at the time of giving the loan itself, he withheld Rs. 5,000/-, that is he actually gave only Rs. 25,000/-. Within six months she returned the entire amount with interest. However, the respondent No.5 demanded more money towards interest and started harassing her. She paid Rs. 30,000/- more to the respondent No.5. Then he demanded that she should pay him Rs. 2.5 lakhs more. As she could not meet his further illegal demands, he threw her and her things out of the house and forcibly took the possession of the house around May, 2008. He also snatched the property documents from her. The issue of restoration of the possession of the said house was taken up with the Police, Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, Karnataka Slum Development Board and Elders-Helpline. As the representations/complaints filed with the said authorities did not lead her anywhere, she has filed this petition.

2. Sri. Clifton D' Rozario, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fifth respondent himself has agreed to give back the possession of the house to the petitioner, as is evident from his statement at Annexure-M and the report of the Police, dated 10.06.2011 at Annexure-K. Even when the petitioner has paid more than what she was obliged to pay, the possession of the house is not being restored to her.

3. Sri. Rozario brings to my notice the various provisions contained in the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ('the said Act-for short). He submits that under Section 22(2) of the said Act, the State Government is required to prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens. He submits that as per Section 3 of the said Act, the provisions of the said Act would have primacy over the provisions of any other enactment.

4. Nextly the learned counsel brings to my notice the Karnataka Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 ('the said Rules-for short) framed under the said Act. Rule 20(2)(i) of the said Rules requires the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizens of the district are protected so that they are able to live with security and dignity. Rule 21(1) of the said Rules requires the District Superintendent of Police and in case of cities having a Police Commissioner, such Police Commissioner to take all necessary steps for the protection of life and property of the senior citizens. Rule 21(2)(i) states that each and every police station shall maintain an up-to-date list of senior citizens living within their jurisdiction, especially those who are staying single.

5. He also brings to my notice Section 27 of the said Act, which ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It reads as follows:

"27. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred.-No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which any provision of this Act applies and no injunction shall be granted by any Civil Court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under this Act."

6. He has relied on the Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Majeedan v. State of U.P. and others in Misc. Bench No.11773/2014 disposed of on 27.11.2014 (Reported in 2015 (108) All LR 399), wherein a direction is given to the District Magistrate to look into the gri