Judge Norov grounded the decision in the 2006 by-law on compulsory acquisition for public need.108 It permits compulsory acquisition for public need in circumscribed circumstances, with the consent of property owners and the provision of commensurate compensation. As has been noted previously, because it is a by-law it would appear not to override or supersede legally enshrined private property rights enjoyed by homeowners. Samarkand General Prosecutor Boburmirzo Oblakulov issued a formal protest against the Civil Court decision, noting that the court ‘did not check the presented materials and explanations, definitions of the circumstances of the case, the rights and obligations of the parties, in order to fully and objectively clarify the actual circumstances of the case; in connection with the right to apply appropriate legal measures, there was no comprehensive consideration of the case, the conclusions reached by the court did not correspond to the circumstances of the case, and therefore, along with a violation of substantive legal norms, a violation of procedural norms was committed’.109 In the letter, the law is again restated, with the Prosecutor General’s Office emphasising that before property can be acquired for public need, consent of the private property owners must be obtained. It notes that 28 out of the 36 private property owners in buildings 43 and 49 have not given consent. The Prosecutor General also observes that a witness in the trial had attested that residents in block 49 had given their consent, without evidentiary grounds for making this assertion. As a result, the Prosecutor General’s Office called for the cancellation of the Samarkand City Civil Court decision. Despite this request, the Appellate Court of first instance declined to change the original Civil Court decision, claiming consent had been given by residents in buildings 43 and 49.110 On 6 July 2018, the acting mayor of Samarkand, Talant Esirgapov, issued decree no. 1217-K at the developer’s request (no. 1510-K is the original decree passed on 15 August 2017, by the then mayor of Samarkand, Vokhid Rahimov).111 It amends the wording of decree no. 1510-K, removing the words ‘Samarqand Agro Eksport Servis’ and replacing them with ‘Silk Voyage LLC’. The decree states that all other provisions in 1510-K are to be enforced, a statement that appears to have revived the initial decree. When originally checked in 2022, the sole shareholder in Samarkand Agro Eksport Servis, Martirosov Artyom Arturovich, was registered as the general director of Silk Voyage LLC. The shareholders of Silk Voyage LLC were/are Martirosova Anna Arturovna (70%), Raximov Farrux Mamadaliyevich (15%) and Abbasov Sherzod Akramovich (15%).112 Following the passage of decree no. 1217-K, the developer began eviction proceedings in the Samarkand City Civil Court against residents asserting their private property rights and resisting forced eviction. Among the targeted residents were Umida Rozikova and her two sisters, Dilorom and Shakhnoza. In the Civil Court decision delivered on 26 December 2018, it was noted that consent from the Rozikova sisters had not been given. It was also revealed that the city of Samarkand did not have in place an approved master plan, which is an essential prerequisite when acquiring property for public need.113 Accordingly, all construction in the city had been required to stop until a master plan was approved, by order no. 0105/1855 issued by Prime Minister Aripov. Accordingly, it is reported in the judgement that the developer had been instructed to stop work until a master plan for Samarkand had been completed, following a meeting of the city of Samarkand administration. It was also claimed in the judgement that the developer had failed to submit evidence of a building permit. Nor did the plaintiff, the court claimed, provide evidence of leases where the Rozikova sisters would be temporarily housed until replacement apartments had been provided. The request for eviction was thus denied. 109. Letter from Samarkand City Prosecutor B.S. Oblakulov to the Judicial Collegium Samarkand Regional Court for Civil Affairs, 21 April 2018. A False Sense of Legality 39