A $450,000 property, a 4.3 billion soum credit, cadastral documents recognized as fake, and years of ongoing court proceedings. Addressing this case in Khorezm region, citizen Dildora Bekchanova has issued another appeal demanding a legal assessment of several circumstances.

How did the conflict actually begin?

According to the appeal, the dispute began with property relations concerning an unfinished multi-story building located at 55/4 Zarbulak Street, Urgench city.

Pursuant to a notarized sale and purchase agreement, part of the object was transferred from "ORIGINAL STANDART QURILISH" LLC to the family enterprise "EURO POWER".

On May 20, 2020, part of the property was state-registered in the name of "ORIGINAL STANDART QURILISH" LLC, while nine days later—on May 29, 2020—the purchased part was state-registered in the name of the family enterprise "EURO POWER", and relevant cadastral documents were issued.

Later, the part of the property belonging to "ORIGINAL STANDART QURILISH" LLC consisting of a single entrance block became the property of Dildora Bekchanova based on a notarized sale and purchase agreement.

As noted in the appeal, this property was sold to her by R. Makhmudov, head of the family enterprise "EURO POWER", and 450,000 US dollars were paid for the property. This is because one entrance block of this property was R. Makhmudov's share in "ORIGINAL STANDART QURILISH" LLC.

According to Bekchanova, there were no objections during the property registration process. Even in the cadastral documents issued in her name, R. Makhmudov himself signed as the owner of the neighboring property.

Cadastral documents at the center of the dispute

In Dildora Bekchanova's opinion, the dispute arose not over the documents issued for her property, but over the cadastral documents belonging to the neighboring property — the family enterprise "EURO POWER". She emphasizes that these documents were subsequently found to be forged, and it was precisely these documents that were used as a basis in various legal processes.

The appeal notes that as a result of the documents deemed forged, the legal cadastral documents of the property belonging to Bekchanova were also called into question, leading to a property dispute.

Why is the 2022 court ruling causing controversy?

On October 26, 2022, by the ruling of Dilmurod Ochilov, chairman of the Urgench interdistrict administrative court, Dildora Bekchanova's ownership right to this property was found invalid.

The appellant party objects to this ruling, emphasizing that certain cadastral documents belonging to the family enterprise "EURO POWER" submitted during the court hearing were later found to be forged.

The appeal also states that a full legal assessment was not given to the issue of the date of state registration and the priority of property rights. In Bekchanova's opinion, the property right registered earlier should be considered a priority. However, this circumstance was not taken into account in the court hearing.

Criminal case against R. Makhmudov

Following numerous appeals, the Khorezm regional prosecutor's office initiated a criminal case against R. Makhmudov, head of the family enterprise "EURO POWER", under Article 168, Part 4 of the Criminal Code.

During the investigation, charges related to the falsification of cadastral documents were brought against cadastral system employee B. Sadullayev and R. Makhmudov. By court verdict, R. Makhmudov was found guilty and sentenced to 7 years and 6 months of imprisonment.

The appellant party points out that the investigation materials examined not only the property dispute, but also the circumstances of obtaining a 4.3 billion soum credit by pledging the property of the family enterprise "EURO POWER" and the use of forged cadastral documents.

Questions regarding the 4.3 billion soum credit

The appeal specifically mentions the 4.3 billion soum credit allocated by the Khorezm regional branch of "Ozsanoatqurilishbank".

Dildora Bekchanova believes that there were a number of contradictions in the documents accepted as collateral.

In particular:

— the presence of inaccuracies in state registration data;

— the property area being indicated differently in various documents;

— discrepancies existing between notarized documents and cadastral data;

— the pledge agreement recording the footprint area of the construction rather than the total area of the property.

According to the appellant party, a legal assessment should also have been given to the actions of the bank officials who participated in processing the credit regarding these circumstances. However, the prosecutor's office did not pay attention to this situation, or overlooked the situation superficially.

Because while the issue of liability for R. Makhmudov—the person who obtained a credit by pledging property using forged documents—was reviewed, the bank employees who accepted it as collateral using those very documents seemingly remain forgotten on the sidelines.

To have this issue reviewed, the appellant's defense party sent appeals to a number of authorized agencies, in particular the General Prosecutor's Office. A response to this appeal was provided by the Khorezm regional prosecutor's office on April 6, in which opinions inconsistent with the substance of the appeal were recorded by deputy prosecutor M. Khojayev.

Newly discovered circumstances and the demand for review

After the court verdicts regarding the falsity of the cadastral documents entered into legal force, Dildora Bekchanova applied to the Urgench interdistrict administrative court requesting a review of the previous administrative court ruling based on newly discovered circumstances. However, her application was not satisfied. Subsequently, the cassation instance court of the Khorezm regional administrative court also left the first-instance ruling unchanged.

After that, Bekchanova's lawyer Doston Boltayev applied to the pre-trial dispute resolution commission of the Khorezm regional department of the State Cadastres Chamber, demanding the cancellation of the cadastral documents issued in the name of the family enterprise "EURO POWER". However, the commission evaluated the state registration process of these documents as lawful.

Later, lawyer Doston Boltayev applied to the Urgench interdistrict administrative court, asking to declare these cadastral documents invalid. However, the claims were not satisfied in the case reviewed under the chairmanship of judge M. Pulatov.

In the opinion of the appellant party, the conclusions in the court rulings adopted on criminal cases were not sufficiently taken into account in this situation.

What does Dildora Bekchanova demand?

In her latest appeal, Dildora Bekchanova requested the authorized state bodies to:

— examine the process of allocating the 4.3 billion soum credit;

— give a legal assessment to the actions of bank officials;

— study the circumstances that were not given a legal assessment during the investigation;

— analyze the process of adopting the court ruling issued in 2022;

— remove documents deemed forged from state registers;

— take measures to suspend notarial and other official actions being carried out on the basis of these documents.

Conclusion

This case in Khorezm region encompasses complex legal issues related to property rights, the authenticity of cadastral documents, bank credit, notarial registration, and court rulings.

Currently, no official response has been issued in the mass media by the prosecutor's office, court authorities, the State Cadastres Chamber, or "Ozsanoatqurilishbank" regarding the circumstances cited in Dildora Bekchanova's appeal.

The editorial office is ready to publish the responses of all parties regarding this issue.