Steel Quality Business claimed that it offered compensation in the form of ‘the acquisition on the secondary market at the expense of the developer of another equivalent well-equipped residential premises at the choice of the defendant, [or] the payment of monetary compensation in the amount of 70,000 US dollars in national currency at the exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the day of payment, [or] providing an apartment with total usable area equal to the demolished house’.77 The judgement notes: ‘However, the defendant did not agree to any of the proposed options, deliberately preventing the demolition and delaying the construction.’ Judge Kariev ordered the eviction of Alieva Shakhzade and her family and ordered Steel Quality Business to pay UZS1.316 billion in compensation. The court also questioned the legality of the 2010 home reconstruction on the property and Shakhzade’s overall title to the land. It was alleged to the court by a representative of the Yunusabad District Hokimiyat that the 2010 reconstruction was done illegally and that their home was an unauthorised building, an assessment that the court appears to have accepted.78 It appears that the state potentially used this claim to weaken the resistance of Shakhzade. However, in this instance, Shakhzade and her family contested the initiating decree no. 1544 in the Tashkent Administrative Court.79 The Administrative Court remarked that under articles 2 and 13 of the then applicable regulation,80 acquisition for public need required the consent of the landowner. The compensation arrangement should have been agreed in advance of the mayoral decree and information relating to the owners of residential and non-residential premises and the compensation to be paid to them, ought to have been enumerated in the decision of the hokim, the court observed. It was also noted that under Cabinet of Ministers regulations set out in decree no. 54, dated 25 February 2013 (expired on 1 July 2018),81 provision for the use of land owned, used or leased by an individual can only take place after it has been seized in the prescribed manner by state authorities. In addition, the court noted, under the regulations the decision must be made in compliance with urban master plans. The court then remarked with respect to these above regulations, ‘in the adoption of this decision [decree no. 1544], the requirements of the above laws were not followed [by the mayoral administration], and as a result, it seems that the private enterprise built structures that violated the requirements of the law’. Attention was also drawn by the Administrative Court to relevant articles of the Urban Planning Code, which requires that proposed developments be the subject of open discussion with citizens, with all relevant information disclosed on the project impacts.82 It was noted that the Tashkent City administration had failed to notify affected residents in the prescribed written format at least six months prior to the proposed demolition. With regard to procedural irregularities, it was further observed by the court that decree no. 1544 was issued without prior approval from the Tashkent City Council of People’s Deputies. A False Sense of Legality 27