Image: Grandchild of Olga Abdullayeva Photographer: Gayane Avanesyan On 13 March 2019, the developer initiated legal action against Abdullaeva to evict her and rehouse her in a property acquired by the developer. Olga Abdullaeva stated that she was not happy with the offered property. Abdullaeva did not consent to the acquisition of her private property. She also claimed that her land is situated outside the plot allocated to Training Project LLC in decree no. 488. Training Project LLC claimed that it was the rightful owner of the plot following the decree, and that its significant efforts to compensate Abdullaeva had been rejected by the retired paediatrician. The court based its decision on article 71 of the Housing Code, which applies to public housing that is withdrawn.135 It states that the impacted residents should receive an equivalent property in compensation. The court, ‘based on the analogy of law’, decided that it ‘applies this rule of law to relations between owners of private housing stock’. The court also placed reliance on article 14 of the 2006 by-law (cited above), ‘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’. The court did not draw attention to the fact that land being acquired for public or state need must first be withdrawn before being reallocated. Furthermore, the court did not comment on the defendant’s claim that this was acquisition for a private property development, not a prescribed state or public need. The Administrative Court decision of 23 August 2019 was cited as authority for the validity of decree no. 488. 137. It ordered the eviction of Abdullaeva and forced her family to accept a proposed property in compensation, which it declared to be equal in value. It dismissed Abdullaeva’s claim that the land was outside the plot awarded in decree no. 488. The Appellate Court of first instance confirmed the original court’s decision, again noting the validity of the hokim’s decree, on the basis of the 23 August 2019 Administrative Court decision, and on the basis of the requirements set out in the 2006 by-law being followed.136 It did, however, rule that the replacement home was lower in value than Abdullaeva’s current house. As a result, she was awarded an additional 268,730,911 UZS (approx. US$23,000) in compensation. The judgement was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Human Rights Ombudsman wrote to the Supreme Court in support of Abdullaeva’s claim.137 The letter notes that the proposed replacement property itself was in a demolition zone and thus insecure, while the evaluation of Abdullaeva’s property value was deemed artificially low. The Ombudsman also notes that decree no. 488 had not been approved by the Tashkent City Kengash of People’s Deputies, as required under the law on local government. When turning to the development itself, the Ombudsman noted that a private multi-storey development is not a prescribed public or state need. In a subsequent letter to Abdullaeva from the Ministry of Justice, it is further noted that under law a private developer cannot compensate residents for property that is being withdrawn for public or state need.138 Letter from the Human Rights Ombudsman Muhammadiev, U., to the Chairman of the Republic of Uzbekistan Supreme Court, Kamilov, K.F., 16 November 2020. A False Sense of Legality 47