PACHAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a senior citizen and a widow belonging to Scheduled Caste. 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 plain 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.