In April 2026, an economic court ruled in favor of the Kushkupir district (hokimiyat) administration in Uzbekistan’s Khorezm region and ordered the early termination of a long-term land lease agreement with the farm Ibragim Baliqchi. The lease covered 129.3 hectares of agricultural land allocated to the farm for cotton and grain production.
The district hokimiyat justified its action, alleging that the farmer had used the land improperly and “for purposes other than those intended [in the land lease]” by building “unauthorized” premises occupying 102 square meters. According to the authorities, the farmer constructed a livestock building on land that was not designated for agricultural use without obtaining the required permission.
Uzbek Forum reviewed the decision of the Kushkupir Economic Court of April 3, 2026. In its ruling, the court relied on provisions of the Land Code that permit termination of land-use rights in cases of improper or irrational use of land, as well as provisions of the lease agreement prohibiting unauthorized construction and the use of agricultural land for purposes other than those specified in the contract. The court concluded that the alleged violations constituted improper land use and therefore justified the early termination of the lease.
Notably, the court considered the existence of a relatively small 102-square-meter livestock structure sufficient grounds for terminating a lease covering more than 129 hectares of agricultural land. This was despite the farmer’s argument that the building had been constructed on non-agricultural land and was used to support the farm’s operations.
Furthermore, one of the principal grounds for terminating the lease was not land degradation or environmental harm, but the farmer’s failure to comply with the crop allocation plan established by local authorities. The court found that over last three years the farmer had deviated from the officially approved system of obligatory crop placement by planting less cotton than required, allocating more land to other crops, failing to cultivate crops specified in the plan, and leaving portions of the leased land uncultivated. These actions were deemed to constitute both non-compliance with the designated use of the land and irrational use of agricultural land.
The decision illustrates that, despite official claims of agricultural liberalization and increased autonomy for farmers, local authorities and courts continue to treat the state-imposed crop placement system as effectively mandatory. In practice, deviation from this system is considered a serious violation of land-use obligations. The system of crop placement provides the basis for production quotas for cotton and grain farmers, now known as “production yield estimates”, and have effectively replaced the state-imposed quota which was abolished in 2020 as it was identified as a key driver of forced labor.
In Uzbekistan’s agricultural sector, the government continues to exercise significant control over farmers’ decisions over what they cultivate. Crop allocation is enforced by local authorities and stipulates how much land must be planted with specific crops. Failure to comply with these allocation plans can serve as grounds for land-lease termination.
In court, the farmer argued that the disputed building had already been removed and that all contractual obligations had been properly fulfilled. However, the court found that he had failed to provide sufficient evidence supporting these claims. As a result, the court fully satisfied the hokimiyat’s claim and ordered the early termination of his land lease, effectively depriving him of his livelihood and compensation for investments.
Farmer Rejects Allegations
In an interview with a local media Effect.uz, the farmer stated that he has cultivated the land for nearly twenty years and that the farm not only grows cotton and wheat but also operates fish farming and livestock activities, which contribute to the farm’s financial sustainability.
According to the farmer, local authorities misrepresented the facts surrounding the alleged unauthorized construction. He maintains that the structures were built on non-agricultural land allocated by the district administration as early as 2010 as auxiliary agricultural facilities, including livestock buildings and other support infrastructure. He argues that the facilities did not interfere with agricultural production or prevent the farm from fulfilling its obligations.
The farmer also stated that his farming business consistently delivers agricultural products, has no outstanding debts to state institutions, and continues to invest in agricultural development, including water-saving technologies, cotton-harvesting equipment, and improved seed varieties.
Continuing Concerns Over Land Tenure Security
The case highlights continuing concerns regarding the security of farmers’ land-use rights in Uzbekistan.
Although the Uzbek government has repeatedly announced reforms aimed at strengthening farmers’ autonomy and protecting agricultural producers, local authorities continue to exercise significant influence over land allocation and lease termination. Farmers and civil society organizations have long expressed concern that land leases can be revoked on broad and sometimes subjective grounds, creating uncertainty for agricultural producers who have invested years of labor and resources in developing their farms.
The court’s decision itself demonstrates the continuing role of district authorities in enforcing state-approved crop-placement plans and using deviations from those plans as evidence in proceedings to terminate agricultural land leases.
At the farmer’s request, the appeal will be heard outside Khorezm region. According to the farmer, this reflects concerns about the impartiality of local judicial proceedings. He says he intends to continue cultivating the land while awaiting a final decision from the appellate court.
The outcome of the appeal may become an important test of whether Uzbekistan’s courts are prepared to provide meaningful protection of farmers’ land-use rights in disputes involving local authorities.
