It was also stated by the court that ‘there are no documents confirming the right to the land plot occupied by this house and adjacent to it’. Referring to the civil court decisions, the Appeal Administrative Court noted that Shakhzade will be paid compensation for her demolished home. As a result, it argued, there is no rights violation by decree no. 1544. Finally the court also ruled that Shakhzade learnt of decree no. 1544 in December 2020, and thus failed to appeal to the courts within the required three months. As a result of these conclusions, the initial decision of the Tashkent City Administrative Court was annulled. The Shakhzade family, facing considerable stress, strain and financial resourcing challenges, finally elected to accept compensation and leave their family home. The cases of Langer and Shakhzade demonstrate the significant challenges that residents face when seeking remedy after their real property has been appropriated through an illegally rendered decision and handed over to a private developer. First, while the illegal nature of the decision may be attested to by accountability bodies, such as the Ombudsman and Prosecutor General, these views have no legal force. Affected residents must go to court. Second, when prosecuting their claim in court, residents have a limited window of three months to initiate their action against private property right violations by the state. In effect, this meant that for residents along Niyozbek Yuli Street their constitutionally and lawfully defined property rights would expire if they failed to challenge in court an offending decree within three months from the date they learnt of the decree’s passage. Third, as the appeal judgement in the Shakhzade case demonstrates, the 30 A False Sense of Legality courts appear to make explicitly wrong statements of law, which undermine the rights of residents. Fourth, even in the rare circumstance where a plaintiff overturns an illegal decree, the judgement is a partial ruling applicable to their property only. Fifth, when residents face civil litigation, the courts accept without review the legality of potentially illegal decrees, and decide the case only on the basis of the relevant compensation procedure. This helps to also situate other significant challenges facing residents affected by property confiscations and evictions. Few have the resources to pursue litigation, especially given the widely held view in Uzbekistan that the court system works in favour of government parties and developers. Second, residents face pressure to accept compensation, or face court, a forum in which many lack faith. As a result, residents are therefore under significant pressure to accept violations of their private property rights by the state and seek whatever compensation they can from developers. According to Fathulla Tashpulatov, who is a resident and a former chairman of a mahalla in the area affected by the Nur complex, this totality of forces creates a disparity of power when negotiating compensation. He claims: ‘The company’s appraisal of the house was also not fair. They underestimate the total area of the house and offer very little compensation. They are doing what is convenient for them. The company has two realtors and one employee in its office … Now a realtor named Rustam has come … He often comes and makes us nervous. He is pressuring us to move faster. He threatens to take us to court and deprive us of our private property rights if we do not agree to these terms [of compensation].’86