The company also cites article 47 of regulations contained in an appendix to Cabinet of Ministers decree no. 911.70 The specific article states: ‘When written consent is obtained from 75% of the owners of the real estate objects located on the plot of land that is planned to be withdrawn (when the agreement is concluded), but if it is not possible to obtain the consent of the remaining owners (when no agreement is reached), the initiator has the right to apply to the court with a claim for the compulsory purchase of their real estate objects. In this case, the amount, types and terms of compensation to be given to the owners who did not agree (agreement was not reached) shall be determined by the court procedure.’ This provision applies to a land plot containing multiple residential properties. Langer’s home was part of a one-storey housing complex built during the early Soviet period. Therefore, the developer appears to have been arguing that other residents in the complex had consented, rendering Langer a minority who could be compelled to sell her property by the court. Steel Quality Business asked the court to order Langer to accept compensation and vacate her home. In an interim decision, the court did not review the legality of the process through which the developer obtained title.71 Nor did it consider in its judgement the argument regarding the grounds for removal of Ms Langer from her home. The interim decision did, however, specify that an independent valuer should evaluate the value of Langer’s home and report back to the court. Langer recalls: ‘I was taken to court. How nervous. My leg hurts, and sometimes my blood pressure goes up. I am not young, I am 66 years old. I didn’t ask them for much. I asked them to compensate me for the total area of my house. My grandson has been attending schools here since first grade. Now he is in seventh grade. So I asked them to give me a one-bedroom apartment and my children a two-bedroom apartment. I didn’t ask them for anything stupid.’72 The case against Langer was subsequently dropped by Steel Quality Business. She decided to accept the compensation and left her home. A second case involves Tashkent resident Alieva Shakhzade. Shakhzade had lived on Niyozbek Yuli Street since 1981.73 Shakhzade built a new home on the site in 2010, which she lived in with her daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter. Shakhzade was the first resident to challenge the legality of the hokim’s 2017 decision to grant the land to Steel Quality Business, with assistance from her son-in-law Javlon Mahmudov. As it had with Farida Langer, Steel Quality Business initiated legal action to evict Ms Shakhzade and her family, with compensation.74 Steel Quality Business again relied on decree no. 1544 as the lawful basis for its title and the right to evict existing home owners in the area with compensation. The court characterised this decree as granting seizure of a land plot for public need – despite the fact that no such need was expressed in the decree – and as a result argued that article 27 of the Housing Code applied, requiring compensation be paid (notably, article 27 is entitled: ‘Providing residential premises for citizens whose houses (apartments) are subject to demolition in connection with the seizure of land for state or public needs’75).76 72. 26 A False Sense of Legality Personal communication, Farida Langer, 24 April 2022.