Today in our country, the issues of the inviolability of private property, support for entrepreneurship, and the protection of investors' rights are emphasized as one of the priority directions of state policy. However, certain situations observed locally show that the principles of the rule of law and the inviolability of private property are not always ensured in practice.

 The incident that occurred in the Zakovat neighborhood of the Mirzo Ulugbek district in Tashkent is also attracting public attention as one of such controversial situations.

According to the applicant, Akram aka, he legally purchased the disputed land plot in December 2018. The right to the property was registered by the state, and in 2020, cadastral documents were issued. He states that even after this, written statements promising not to start construction work were taken from him by various agencies, restricting his ability to use the land plot. At the same time, the owner continued to pay large amounts of taxes every year.

Later, after this territory was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Mirzo Ulugbek district, the prosecutor's office filed lawsuits in courts regarding the land plot. The lawsuits demanded the cancellation of previous decisions on land allocation and the return of the territory to the state reserve. However, the civil court refused to satisfy the prosecutor's claims and ruled in favor of the property owner.

 After that, in order to put the territory in order, the owner fenced the land with modern metal sheet barriers at his own expense. However, on April 12 of this year, a group of unknown persons reportedly demolished these barriers. It is noted that law enforcement officers were also present at the scene.

 According to the owner, when he tried to show his documents, a person who introduced himself as a representative of the city khokimiyat made statements to the effect of "I am the decision myself, I am the law myself."

 Another important question arises regarding this situation. If property disputes were considered in court and relevant decisions were made, on what legal basis was damage caused to the property? Also, the participation of prosecutor's office, internal affairs, and National Guard officers in this process, given that there was no emergency or threat to public safety in the area, requires an explanation.

 The neighborhood chairman, in a conversation with the journalist, while acknowledging the existence of the owner's documents, expressed the community's need for a kindergarten and a playground. However, no matter how important state and public needs are, they cannot be implemented without the procedures established by legislation, compensation mechanisms, and court decisions.

 Currently, a journalistic inquiry has been sent to the Tashkent city prosecutor's office regarding this situation, and a legal assessment by officials is awaited. The public is searching for an answer to one question: if an owner cannot protect their property even when court decisions, state-registered property rights, and legal documents exist, to what extent are the current guarantees of the inviolability of private property ensured?

 We continue to monitor the developments and expect a fair response from the Tashkent city prosecutor's office.

Muhammad Ali Kozokov, Effekt.uz information agency journalist