Event
Yunus-Abad and Mirzo-Ulugbek,
Tashkent City
4 Niyozbek Yuli Street
10.4
Tashkent City
4 Niyozbek Yuli Street
Latitude: 41.325712
Longitude: 69.286761
Background
On 21 November 2017, decision no.1544 of the Tashkent City Hokim allocates Steel Quality Business LLC (operating as Namuna Development) (1) a land plot for the construction of multi-storey residential buildings on the territory of Yunus-Abad and Mirzo-Ulugbek districts of Tashkent (2). In particular, the developer has been allocated plots on Niezbek Yuli, Sharofobod, Malyasova and Lashkarbegi streets (2). The developer claims they will be building Nur complex, a residential complex that will feature 30 buildings and 932 apartments along with parks, cafes, boutiques, jogging trails and barrier face recognition systems to ensure around the clock security (3). The decision provides for the demolition of residential buildings and non-residential premises located on this territory, with the provision of compensation to the owners (2).
Demolition
In a letter of complaint, residents allege that the process of the demolitions has involved some regulatory violations (4). For instance, residents claim that those in Yunus-Abad district were advised of the demolitions in late 2017, while those in Mirzo-Ulugbek were advised in 2019 (ibid.) They also claim there was no prior consultation with communities before the demolition decision was made (ibid.) Residents also alleged that the way that the demolition notices were given was not in line with the law, as they lacked a date of delivery, a registration number, and a seal, and that this information was not supplied in accordance with the deadlines for a demolition notice (ibid.) Residents say they have only received a copy of the Hohimiyat decree, the developer's registration certificate and a power of attorney document, whilst later a copy of the cadastre document was provided (ibid.)
Compensation
The developer claims that as per decision no. 911 they offered compensation which included either the acquisition of an equivalent residential property on the secondary market, payment of monetary compensation in the amount of USD 70,000, or provision within the new development of an equivalent property with payment for temporary housing (5).
Residents, however, claim the compensation offered is inadequate (4). They also claim residents opposing the demolition have been told by the developer they will be evicted through litigation (ibid.) A resident from the impacted community has claimed that those who have not accepted the compensation have faced harassment and intimidation (Uwazi entry – Kagramanova victim profile). One resident, Farida Langer, faced civil court action by the developer which was dropped once she agreed to vacate her home (Uwazi entry – Langer victim profile).
Alongside these core issues, residents claim that construction around their residence leads to 24-hour noise, in addition to dust, the dumping of garbage, pipe damage, environmental harm, and cracks in their properties (Uwazi entry – Yusupova victim profile). This has caused considerable additional stress to impacted residents (ibid.)
On 26 August 2022, the Ministry of Justice writes a letter voicing their opinion on the concerns raised by residents, including:
“The examination of the decision of the city governor of Tashkent dated November 21, 2017, No. 1544, revealed that this decision does not comply with the requirements of the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan, which renders it illegal.” “The decision does not provide for the expropriation of a land plot, and secondly, it is impossible to provide (sale) a land plot that is in possession, use, lease and ownership without its expropriation (purchase) in the prescribed manner.” “Due to the fact that the decision of the Hokim of the city of Tashkent dated November 21, 2017 No. 1544 does not provide for the withdrawal of a land plot, there are no legal grounds for negotiating related to compensation for damage caused to owners in connection with the withdrawal of a land plot for state and public needs.”(18) This is echoed by the Oliy Majlis Ombudsman on 30 November 2022 (20). This document reaffirms that resolution 1544 “contradicts certain provisions of the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan” and furthermore, “does not comply with the requirements of designating the land plot for auctioning” or sale (ibid.)
Legal action
On 25 October 2022, a decision was issued by the Tashkent Inter-district Administrative Court on a claim (case no. 5-1001-2210/2153) submitted by Alieva Shahzade Khakimovna who sought to overturn decision no. 1544 (19). The court ruled that decision no. 1544 is not in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan, as well as Urban Planning Codes and annulled it on that basis (ibid.)
According to a decision issued by the appellate body of the Tashkent Inter-District Administrative Court (dated 7 December 2022, case no. 2-600/22) an appeal was lodged by Steel Quality Business LLC, seeking to overturn the decision issued by the Tashkent Inter-District Administrative Court (21). The court ruled in favour of Steel Quality Business LLC, stating that Khakimovna’s ownership of her property was not substantially proven and that the statute of limitations had expired, rendering her claim invalid (ibid.) The court ruled without the presence of Khakimovna or her attorneys (ibid.) The decision on the appeal also provided for the collection of a sum from Kakimovna as well as for the developer Steel Quality Business to be refunded a sum from the state budget (ibid.)
{media}()
Designed and developed by
Steel Quality Business LLC was incorporated on 6 January 2017, with a share capital of UZS 65,100, 000 (1). It is a property development company (ibid.) The company’s director is Yusupov Umidjan Nigmatovich and its shareholders are Xusanov Abdullatif Abdugapurovich (19.4%), Agzamov Sanjar Nigmatovich (19.4%) and Technological Generation (61%) (ibid.) The sole shareholder of Technological Generation is Rolan Sakenov (2). Sakenov is an affiliate of the Eurasia Insurance Company, alongside Uzbek oligarch Patokh Chodiev (3). Sakenov claims that he arrived in Uzbekistan from Kazakhstan in 2020 to work for Alfa Invest Insurance (4). A minor shareholder in Steel Quality Business LLC, Abdullatif Khusanov, is a Deputy Director at Alfa Invest Insurance (6). A person listed as Sanjar Agzamov Nigmatovich, likely the shareholder of Steel Quality Business Agzamov Sanjar Nigmatovich, is the director of Unit Great Trade LLC (7).
The above shareholding arrangement reflects the company information, as it appears on a company extract checked on 12 April 2022. On the company extract (26 June 2020) the shareholders were Agzamov Sanjar Nigmatovich (50%) and Xusanov Abdullatif Abdugapurovich (50%) (8). In this company extract the address of Steel Quality Business corresponds with the head office address of Alfa Insurance (15). In the company extract (29 September 2019) the sole shareholder was Axmedjanov Baxodir Baxromovich (9). Steel Quality Business operates through the brand Namuna Development (10).
Steel Quality Business LLC is the developer involved in the Niyozbek Yuli Street case (11). Residents report a number of issues related to this event which are detailed in the Niyozbek Yuli event summary.
Background
On 21 November 2017, decision no.1544 of the Tashkent City Hokim allocates Steel Quality Business LLC (operating as Namuna Development) (1) a land plot for the construction of multi-storey residential buildings on the territory of Yunus-Abad and Mirzo-Ulugbek districts of Tashkent (2). In particular, the developer has been allocated plots on Niezbek Yuli, Sharofobod, Malyasova and Lashkarbegi streets (2). The developer claims they will be building Nur complex, a residential complex that will feature 30 buildings and 932 apartments along with parks, cafes, boutiques, jogging trails and barrier face recognition systems to ensure around the clock security (3). The decision provides for the demolition of residential buildings and non-residential premises located on this territory, with the provision of compensation to the owners (2).
Demolition
In a letter of complaint, residents allege that the process of the demolitions has involved some regulatory violations (4). For instance, residents claim that those in Yunus-Abad district were advised of the demolitions in late 2017, while those in Mirzo-Ulugbek were advised in 2019 (ibid.) They also claim there was no prior consultation with communities before the demolition decision was made (ibid.) Residents also alleged that the way that the demolition notices were given was not in line with the law, as they lacked a date of delivery, a registration number, and a seal, and that this information was not supplied in accordance with the deadlines for a demolition notice (ibid.) Residents say they have only received a copy of the Hohimiyat decree, the developer's registration certificate and a power of attorney document, whilst later a copy of the cadastre document was provided (ibid.)
Compensation
The developer claims that as per decision no. 911 they offered compensation which included either the acquisition of an equivalent residential property on the secondary market, payment of monetary compensation in the amount of USD 70,000, or provision within the new development of an equivalent property with payment for temporary housing (5).
Residents, however, claim the compensation offered is inadequate (4). They also claim residents opposing the demolition have been told by the developer they will be evicted through litigation (ibid.) A resident from the impacted community has claimed that those who have not accepted the compensation have faced harassment and intimidation (Uwazi entry – Kagramanova victim profile). One resident, Farida Langer, faced civil court action by the developer which was dropped once she agreed to vacate her home (Uwazi entry – Langer victim profile).
Alongside these core issues, residents claim that construction around their residence leads to 24-hour noise, in addition to dust, the dumping of garbage, pipe damage, environmental harm, and cracks in their properties (Uwazi entry – Yusupova victim profile). This has caused considerable additional stress to impacted residents (ibid.)
On 26 August 2022, the Ministry of Justice writes a letter voicing their opinion on the concerns raised by residents, including:
“The examination of the decision of the city governor of Tashkent dated November 21, 2017, No. 1544, revealed that this decision does not comply with the requirements of the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan, which renders it illegal.” “The decision does not provide for the expropriation of a land plot, and secondly, it is impossible to provide (sale) a land plot that is in possession, use, lease and ownership without its expropriation (purchase) in the prescribed manner.” “Due to the fact that the decision of the Hokim of the city of Tashkent dated November 21, 2017 No. 1544 does not provide for the withdrawal of a land plot, there are no legal grounds for negotiating related to compensation for damage caused to owners in connection with the withdrawal of a land plot for state and public needs.”(18) This is echoed by the Oliy Majlis Ombudsman on 30 November 2022 (20). This document reaffirms that resolution 1544 “contradicts certain provisions of the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan” and furthermore, “does not comply with the requirements of designating the land plot for auctioning” or sale (ibid.)
Legal action
On 25 October 2022, a decision was issued by the Tashkent Inter-district Administrative Court on a claim (case no. 5-1001-2210/2153) submitted by Alieva Shahzade Khakimovna who sought to overturn decision no. 1544 (19). The court ruled that decision no. 1544 is not in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan, as well as Urban Planning Codes and annulled it on that basis (ibid.)
According to a decision issued by the appellate body of the Tashkent Inter-District Administrative Court (dated 7 December 2022, case no. 2-600/22) an appeal was lodged by Steel Quality Business LLC, seeking to overturn the decision issued by the Tashkent Inter-District Administrative Court (21). The court ruled in favour of Steel Quality Business LLC, stating that Khakimovna’s ownership of her property was not substantially proven and that the statute of limitations had expired, rendering her claim invalid (ibid.) The court ruled without the presence of Khakimovna or her attorneys (ibid.) The decision on the appeal also provided for the collection of a sum from Kakimovna as well as for the developer Steel Quality Business to be refunded a sum from the state budget (ibid.)
Latitude: 41.325712
Longitude: 69.286761
