Attempts were made to challenge decree no. 488 in the Administrative Courts. Residents claimed: ‘The decision contradicts the requirements of article 12 of the “Regulations on the procedure for providing land plots in settlements for the implementation of urban planning activities” … No. 54 of 25.02.2013. In accordance with this norm, the hokim was obliged to refuse to allocate a land plot and send Training Project LLC notification of the impossibility of providing a land plot, with a proposal to independently buy real estate from the owners.’126 residential buildings (apartments) owned by citizens due to the expropriation of land for state or public needs, said citizens, members of their families, as well as citizens permanently residing in these buildings (apartments), shall be offered, at their choice and by mutual agreement of the parties, another equivalent well-maintained residential property with an area not less than the social norm of living space, and the cost of plantings shall be paid, or the cost of residential buildings (apartments), other buildings, structures and plantings shall be compensated.’132 Based on this article, residents argued: ‘Thus, in violation of the current legislation, the hokim of the city of Tashkent allocated a plot of land for commercial development along with houses that belong to us on the basis of private ownership, which actually violated our legally protected rights and freedoms.’127 The courts did not mention the circumscribed situations set out in article 3 of the by-law that are deemed to constitute public or state need, or how a private multi-storey development might fit within these categories. With the process for negotiating compensation reportedly underway, the courts concluded that no resident rights had been violated by the hokim’s decision. In response to this claim by residents, the hokim rejected any suggestion that the decree was illegal and argued: ‘The decision to demolish and reconstruct this facility was made in order to further improve the investment climate in the country, stimulate direct investment, strengthen investor confidence in the consistency of state policy in this direction, and increase the responsibility of state structures in working with investors.’128 It was also argued: ‘The hokim of the region, district, city has the right to provide land for possession, use and lease to enterprises, institutions, organisations, dehkan farms, citizens, terminate the rights of possession and use of land by these entities, and also to withdraw land with subsequent approval of the decisions made by the relevant Kengash of people’s deputies.’129 The Administrative Court and Court of Appeal rejected the residents’ claim,130 citing by way of authority articles 14 and 26 of the 2006 by-law ‘On the procedure for compensation of damages caused to citizens and legal entities in connection with the seizure of land plots for state and public needs’.131 The former section states: ‘In the event of demolishing 46 A False Sense of Legality The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal lodged by residents and confirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The Supreme Court argued the latter decisions were in line with the law on ‘seizure of land plots for state public needs and the procedure for indemnifying citizens and legal entities in connection with the seizure of land plots’. It again appeared to be accepted that this was a public need-based acquisition, not an acquisition for a private development, as residents argued.133 One of the residents resisting forced eviction was Olga Abdullaeva. A paediatrician by profession, now retired, Olga Abdullaeva had lived in her house for 40 years. She inherited it in 2014 following the death of her husband.134 She lives there with her daughter, son-inlaw and three small grandchildren (the youngest was born in 2021). Her plot of land is 350m2 including the house of 100m2.