Effect.uz journalist Bekzod Rahmonov asked a question, and the responsible official promised to study it within five business days. However, although nearly a month and a half has passed, there is still no clear answer expected by the citizens. Meanwhile, the issue concerns the fate of more than 1,700 trees in a 2.5-hectare area and the legal basis for changes made to cadastral documents.
On September 17 of this year, a mobile reception was held by Bekzod Karimov, acting chairman of the Agency of Cadastres.
At the reception, citizens of the Qizgaldoq neighborhood in Tashkent district raised questions regarding the fate of the trees in the area, as well as decision No. 677 on land allocation adopted in 2021.
An interesting aspect of the issue is that, according to the information provided by the citizens, decision No. 677 indicated the land area of 2.5 hectares under the name of Bogizilol neighborhood in the Qizgaldoq area.
However, according to them, in 2024, the Tashkent district branch of the Agency of Cadastres changed the neighborhood name in this decision to Qizgaldoq neighborhood, entered the data into the UZKAD system, and issued a cadastral document.
At this point, the main question arises:
On what legal basis was the neighborhood name changed? Which document did this change rely on? Is there a legal basis confirming it?
During the mobile reception, the journalist asked this exact question to Bekzod Karimov.
The acting head of the Agency of Cadastres stated that the issue would be studied on-site within five business days, and if necessary, a legal assessment would be given to the actions of the responsible employees. But much time has passed since the promised five business days.
Despite nearly a month and a half passing, no clear and legally grounded response has been provided to the main questions of interest to the citizens.
At the same time, there is another important aspect to the issue.
The issue of mandatory relocation of more than 1,700 trees located in the 2.5-hectare area is on the agenda.
According to the citizens, the mobile reception did not yield the expected results. They trusted the promise of the responsible official, but state that in practice, it was not explained on what basis changes were made to the cadastral documents in 2024, and no public information was provided regarding a legal assessment of the actions of the responsible employees.
Therefore, answers to several questions are needed:
If the neighborhood name in decision No. 677 was changed, on the basis of which document was this carried out?
Who entered this change into the UZKAD system and on what basis?
Why does the issue that was supposed to be studied within five business days still remain open after nearly a month and a half?
Shouldn't mobile receptions be limited not only to listening to citizens' problems, but also ensuring the implementation of the given promises?
EFFECT.UZ awaits an official response from the leadership of the Agency of Cadastres regarding this situation.
In particular, a clear explanation is requested regarding the legal basis for the changes made to decision No. 677, the procedure for entering data into the UZKAD system, and the actions of responsible employees. Because the issue is not just about a land plot or a cadastral document.
It is about the fate of more than 1,700 trees, a 2.5-hectare area, and the legal rights of citizens.
