Image: Home of Farida Langer Source: Uzbek Forum Resident opposition Residents affected by decree no. 1544 claim that they were notified by a deputy hokim (deputy mayor) of the government’s decision to demolish their homes at a meeting convened in 2018. According to witnesses, the deputy hokim left before residents could ask questions. A resident and former chairman of a mahalla (local council) in the affected area, Fathulla Tashpulatov, states: We gathered at School 17 in our mahalla in the hope of asking the deputy hokim the questions that were bothering us and to discuss how to properly address issues in the paperwork. We wanted to consult with him and discuss all the demolition cases. The meeting was attended by deputy hokim, but no one from the construction company came. The fact is that the officials came to the meeting but did not hear the problems of the people. They came and read their decision, announced the demolition of the houses, and left without hearing anyone. What does that mean? Why did he gather the people there? If they don’t want to listen to the people, why did they gather us? The population is still suffering.65 Testimony collected by the monitors confirms that some residents were opposed to the proposed development and were unsatisfied with the compensation offered by the developer. One example is local resident Farida Langer. Farida Langer’s home was situated in passage 4, off Niyozbek Yuli Street. She enjoyed lifetime inheritable possession over the land plot on which her home was built.66 65. She lived there with her children and grandchildren. The latter attended local schools. Langer was unhappy with the compensation proposal as she believed none of the alternatives offered were adequate or commensurate with what was being taken away.67 Under Uzbekistani law, Langer was within her rights to retain her private property and residence. Nevertheless, she was informed by the developer Steel Quality Business in a letter dated 22 December 2020: ‘According to the decision of the hokim of Tashkent City No. 1544, dated 21 November 2017, the private company “Steel Quality Business” was allocated a land plot between Yunusobod and Mirzo Ulugbek districts, from Sharofobod street to Malasova and Niyozbek streets to Lashkarbegi street for the construction of a multi-storey residential complex.’68 The letter continues: ‘This decision of the hokim of Tashkent provides for the demolition of residential and non-residential premises located in this area with the provision of compensation to owners.’ Langer was informed that she may either accept US$40,000 compensation, purchase of an apartment on the secondary market or provision of a new apartment from the Nur complex. She was also advised: ‘If you refuse or do not provide a response within the specified period, we will be forced to appeal to the court with the appropriate claims.’ In the subsequent statement of claim filed against Langer by Steel Quality Business, decree no. 1544 is again cited as the basis for the company’s title over the property and right to evict residents with compensation.69 Personal Communication, Fathulla Tashpulatov, 24 April 2022. A False Sense of Legality 25