Disputes surrounding the conflict related to this property have been ongoing through various court and investigative processes for several years. According to the applicant Khudoshukur Kalandarov and his defense attorney, events began in 2020 when Kalandarov purchased land in the Khiva region.
Reports state that upon returning from the Russian Federation, aiming to live in his homeland and build a house, he officially registered a 40-sotik land plot through a notary, purchasing it for a total of 75,000 US dollars. The land was registered with the state, and taxes have been paid continuously since then. The applicant's side notes that later, after land prices in the area rose sharply, one of the family members who sold the land attempted to reclaim the property. According to the lawyer, initially 100,000 US dollars and later another 60,000 dollars were demanded. He stated that these demands can be confirmed by audio recordings, correspondence, and other evidence.
According to the applicants' claims, when the demanded money was not provided, various threats followed. Conversations mentioned damaging the property, demolishing constructed structures, and other forms of pressure. Kalandarov stated that shortly after, two houses built on his property were demolished. He emphasized that these actions were carried out without a court decision or enforcement documents. Following this, the applicant appealed to law enforcement agencies, specifically the State Security Service. According to the lawyer, a special operation was organized, and the suspect was caught in the act of receiving a part of the requested amount — 60,000 US dollars.
However, this exact point is becoming the subject of main dispute in the case. In the applicants' view, despite the existence of threats, extortion, and the results of the special operation, the criminal case was subsequently classified not as extortion, but under Article 229 of the Criminal Code — "arbitrariness." The court left this legal qualification unchanged. The lawyer considers this decision controversial. He believes that there are a number of contradictions in giving a legal assessment to the circumstances reflected in the case materials, and this situation needs to be reviewed.
The applicant's side noted that a large-scale operational event was carried out by the SSS regarding the additionally demanded 60,000 US dollars, and the suspect was detained. Also, within the framework of this case, the 75,000 dollars previously paid for the land was placed in a deposit. However, according to the applicants, the legal qualification of the case was subsequently changed. In this regard, they ask: "The SSS conducted an operational event involving 60,000 dollars and placed 75,000 dollars in a deposit. Why did the initial legal assessment given to these circumstances subsequently change?"
Another part of the conflict continued within the framework of a criminal case related to land documents. As a result of court decisions, the previously notarized purchase and sale agreement was found invalid, and the land was returned to its former owners. The applicant stated that he has not been able to recover the money paid up to this point. Later, another criminal case was reviewed regarding these circumstances. According to the lawyer, the court found three individuals guilty under articles related to fraud and made a decision to recover the 75,000 US dollars inflicted as damage to the applicant. Currently, this case is reportedly being reviewed in the appellate instance.
The applicants emphasize that there are still many unanswered questions in this story. In particular, no clear explanations have been provided as to why the situation where a special operation was conducted by the State Security Service was classified by internal affairs as "arbitrariness," why the damage caused by the demolition of two houses was not fully calculated, and what legal assessment was given to the clear evidence presented. The applicants are requesting the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General's Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the State Security Service to provide a legal response to this situation, to assign an official investigation against the officials who turned the SSS protocols into a lenient article, and to fairly clarify the controversial aspects of the case.
This conflict in Khorezm is not just a property dispute between two parties, but a serious signal raising the issue of the investment environment in the country, the inviolability of property for compatriots returning from abroad, and the mutual coordination of law enforcement agencies. It is by no means fair that a citizen who worked abroad for years, brought the earned money back to his homeland, and legally bought land through a state notary is sitting today having lost his money, his land, and the houses he built.
Most concerningly, the fact that the results of a special operational event conducted by one state body (SSS) with a large sum of money were "softened" by another department (MIA) within a few hours and the direction of the criminal case was radically altered casts a shadow of doubt on the belief in the rule of law. If legally executed contracts, seals of state agencies, and evidence from a special operation cannot protect a citizen's property from threats and arbitrariness, who should ordinary people trust?
The impartial and transparent review of this case at the appellate stage by higher supervisory bodies is vital not only to restore the rights of Khudoshukur Kalandarov, but also to put an end to collusion and lawbreaking within the system. The fair decision issued following this case will serve as a main criterion demonstrating how the state's responsibility towards its citizens and the inviolability of property work in practice.
Prepared by Muhammad Ali Qozoqov.
