Image: City hokim Boburmirzo Oblokulov (left) and Prosecutor Boburmirzo Oblokulov (right). Sources: Samashahar.uz (left), O’zA, Daryo.uz (right The developer appealed. In the appeal decision, the court upheld the lower court decision noting: ‘The letter of the Main Department of Construction of the city of Samarkand No. 01-303 dated February 27, 2019 reports that the house on Navoishoh Avenue No. 49, in which citizens live, has been studied by specialists, and that all construction work in the city of Samarkand is temporarily stopped until the full development of the master plan of the city of Samarkand [this was a result of order no.0105/1-855 made by Prime Minister Aripov]. The letter of the Samarkand Regional Inspectorate for Construction Control No. 91 dated January 28, 2019 indicates that Silk Voyage LLC does not have permission to demolish houses 43 and 49 along Navoishoh Avenue of the city of Samarkand and carry out construction and installation works of other residential facilities in their place.’114 The court again reiterated the need for property owner consent and for compensation to be provided in the event of consent being provided. Following this decision, a second court case was initiated, this time with the Samarkand city administration joining the developer, again seeking the eviction of Shakhnoza and Umida Rozikova and the demolition of their homes.115 Despite contending with the same factual situation, the same courts reached the reverse conclusion, with the only notable difference now being that the litigation was being led by the city authorities. Also of note is that the new acting mayor, who joined the case with the developer, was Boburmirzo Oblakulov. Oblakulov, as Prosecutor General, had written a letter requesting the cancellation of the Civil Court decision of 21 December 2017, and petitioning for the property rights of the protesting residents to be protected. 40 A False Sense of Legality The case went before the lower court again. The developer claimed Umida Rozikova was offered compensation of 296,000,000 soums (approx. US$25,800), while Shakhnoza Rozikova was offered 380,000,000 soums (approx. US$33,000) or equivalent housing of 71m2 and 90m2, respectively. Umida Rozikova was out of the country during the proceeding, but her two sisters stated categorically that they did not trust the developer, they did not want to sell their properties, and thus also refused compensation. The court claimed that Umida Rozikova had been offered an equivalent apartment on Al Xorazmiy Street, while her sister had been offered an equivalent apartment on Farhod Street. Notably in this case, the Samarkand Civil Court reached a substantively different conclusion to the one it reached on 16 December, and then upheld on appeal. No requirement for consent is noted in the decision; nor is any mention made of the absent master plan for Samarkand, which city authorities are required to have in place before attempts are made to acquire privately owned property. The prime ministerial order halting construction in Samarkand is also omitted from the judgement. Instead, the court remarks that property can be taken for public purpose providing sufficient compensation is provided. In this case, the court argued that the alternative properties exceeded the size of the existing apartments, and were thus deemed adequate. On this basis, the court ordered the forcible eviction of the Rozikova sisters and their families from apartments 16 and 18.