The Akaltin district cases appear to fit with a broader pattern observed in Pop district, Namangan region, where farmland held by farmers through long-term leases was confiscated through the use of coercion, and in some cases fraud. The land is then reallocated to new operators, including large agro-industrial firms, involved in the government’s cluster projects. Indorama Agro was given the opportunity to respond to the issues raised in farmer testimonies. When asked what steps were taken by the company to ensure that the lease terminations were carried out with full, prior and informed consent of farmers, Indorama replied: ‘The lease were granted to Indorama by the relevant government bodies as per the prevailing established procedures through a well-documented process. The government had followed the terms of the previous agreement (lease holder with the Government) in closing that agreement. They also obtained letter of consent for termination of earlier lease from each predecessor lease holder. These are documented.’181 The company adds: ‘The lease were granted to Indorama by the authorised government bodies in accordance to [sic] the established procedures at the time of the lease execution. The process of lease transfer is documented and in accordance with the established procedure. There has been no violation of any procedure to the best of our knowledge. We would also like to state that Indorama Agro have a wellestablished “Grievance Redressal mechanism”, through which every individual from the communities can reach us and talk to us, in case of any issues.’ 2.5 Conclusion These five case studies that involve dozens of victims illustrate the use of illegal measures by the state to seize real property privately held through different tenure arrangements. These seizures are not enacted for public purposes; they are primarily enacted to facilitate private commercial developments. Despite the fundamental violation of constitutionally enshrined rights, victims lack access to meaningful remedy. Administrative Courts have proven unwilling to annul illegal decrees, even when the violations are condemned by oversight bodies including the Human Rights Ombudsman, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice. Civil Courts, meanwhile, do not have the jurisdiction to review illegal decrees and, instead, accept them as lawful decisions, enabling eviction exercises to take place once compensation has been paid. Pressure and coercion is used by the state to force residents and farmers to accept the loss of their property and land leases on terms they do not agree with. In urban cases, real estate developers further pressure households to accept compensation and leave, including through the use of litigation. The next section provides recommendations on how different stakeholders can effectively respond to these abuses. A False Sense of Legality 57