International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
11
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijhps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue01 2025
PAGE NO.
11-16
10.37547/ijhps/Volume05Issue02-03
Issues of applying measures of influence of the
prosecutor over the implementation of legislation on
irrigated agricultural land
Rakhmedov Khurshid Ashraphodjaevich
Senior prosecutor of the General Prosecutor’s Office, magistracy listener, Uzbekistan
Received:
09 December 2024;
Accepted:
11 January 2025;
Published:
13 February 2025
Abstract:
This article analyzes the importance of prosecutorial oversight and the application of measures to
ensure the enforcement of legislation on the efficient use of irrigated agricultural lands. It highlights existing
legislative norms, their socio-economic significance, and practical challenges. Scientific proposals and
recommendations have also been developed to improve the mechanism of prosecutorial measures. These
recommendations aim to enhance the efficiency of rational land resource use and prevent legal violations.
Keywords:
Irrigated agricultural lands, prosecutorial oversight, enforcement of legislation, measures of influence,
land resources, legal violations, efficient use, legal mechanism, challenges, recommendations.
Introduction:
The President of the Republic of
Uzbekistan, Sh. M. Mirziyoyev, correctly emphasized,
“Ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution and laws,
and the principles of legality, is an essential guarantee
for protecting human rights and freedoms.” [1]
As the Prosecutor General of the Republic of
Uzbekistan N.T. Yuldashev noted, “...due to the
initiatives of the head of our state and his attention to
our system, the entire appearance of the prosecutor's
office has radically changed in recent years. The most
important thing is that, as a result of the measures
taken to transform the prosecutor’s office into a
“People’s Prosecutor’s Office” in the true sense of the
word, the system, which for many years has been
perceived by people as a punitive div, is now
becoming a structure that protects their rights and, in
turn, the interests of the state, and contributes to
ensuring the rule of law and the triumph of justice in
society.”[2].
Article 5 of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On
the Prosecutor’s Office” states that any deviation from
the strict implementation and observance of laws,
regardless of the grounds on which it is made, is
considered a violation of legality and entails the
established liability. [3].
One of the most important elements of organizing
prosecutorial control over the implementation of
legislation on irrigated agricultural lands is the analysis
of data on violations of the laws regulating the area
under consideration. The timely application of
prosecutorial control documents, i.e. prosecutorial
measures of influence, on cases of violations identified
during the review of data is important for ensuring the
effectiveness of prosecutorial control in the area.
In this regard, some legal literature emphasizes that
prosecutorial control documents should be considered
as a means of preventing and preventing violations of
the law, as well as eliminating violations of the law,
their causes, and the conditions that enable them [4].
In the opinion of T.V. Ashitkova, the timely and strict
use
of prosecutor’s control documents against
offenders who have committed violations of the land
law is considered an important aspect of ensuring
legality in this area [5], according to V.K. Zvirbul, the
prosecutor’s control documents are the main
instrument of warning against violations [6].
Taking into account the universality and importance of
the prosecutor’s control over the implementation of
laws and the legality of regulatory legal acts established
in other sources, the legal regulation of the
prosecu
tor’s office is fully covered by the Law “On the
Prosecutor’s Office”. The main fact that needs to be
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
12
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijhps
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2222)
clarified and is largely decisive is that the “Procuracy
Law” states that in order for the prosecutor’s office to
exercise control over compliance with laws and the
legality of regulatory legal acts, no indication is
required in other laws other than the law [7].
The analysis shows that the main documents of
prosecutorial control used in the direction of control
over the implementation of legislation on irrigated
agricultural lands are protests, presentations,
decisions, warnings and applications. In particular, over
the past period, it was revealed that 6,259 hectares of
land plots were arbitrarily occupied across the republic,
illegal construction was carried out on 365 hectares,
warnings were issued to 28,636 individuals, 3,247
hectares of land were returned to the state reserve,
and 1,503 illegally constructed objects on 63 hectares
were voluntarily demolished, lawsuits were filed in
courts in 9,484 cases (2,617 hectares), and 30,128
individuals
were
brought
to
administrative
responsibility.
Also, 1,465 criminal cases were initiated in connection
with the looting of 6,077 hectares of land, and 2,823
hectares of land were sold for 22.6 million. US dollars
and 19.7 billion. cases of illegal sale were prevented [8].
A protest filed in the direction of control over the
implementation of legislation is a written legal
document of the prosecutor, which entails legal
consequences, in which he puts forward substantiated
demands to the authorized bodies to cancel or adjust
an illegal act [9].
When conducting an inspection of the implementation
of legislation on irrigated agricultural lands,
prosecutors may file protests against documents they
consider illegal due to violations of the law identified as
a result of the inspection of compliance with the
principles of the Land Code, the authority to maintain
records of information on objects and subjects of
ownership, land ownership, use and lease, their
intended use and the regime of their use, and the
decisions of authorized bodies in the field of protection
and protection of irrigated lands.
Article 38 of the Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office”
states that a prosecutor may file a protest against an
unlawful act with the div that adopted the act or with
a higher authority. According to this Law, if the protest
is rejected by the div (official) that adopted the act or
by a higher authority (official) or is not considered
within the time limit established by law, the prosecutor
has the right to apply to the court with an application
to declare the act unlawful.
In addition, prosecutors use the submission control
document in accordance with Article 40 of the Law “On
the Prosecutor’s Office” to eliminate the violation of
the law, the causes of its origin and the conditions that
make it possible.
According to T.I. Ashitkova, “the most effective means
of prosecutorial control in eliminating violations of the
law in the activities of prosecutors and the conditions
under which
they arise is the presentation” [10].
According to V.G.Melkumov [11] and T.V.Ashitkova
[12], the cases of violation of the law, violated legal
documents, the range of officials who committed the
violation of the law, and the reasons for the violation of
the law should be clearly indicated in the presentation.
In our opinion, the presentation is a document aimed
at eliminating a complex of violations of the law. The
presentation should be legally and qualitatively
formalized and the circumstances of using cultural
heritage objects and archaeological monuments should
be clearly and concisely expressed in it.
Some scholars indicate that the submission as a
document of prosecutor’s control should contain the
following elements:
a) legal analysis of information on the identified
violations of the law;
b) the type, name, date of adoption and number of the
violated regulatory legal act, a clear indication of whose
interests were harmed as a result;
c) the circle of officials who committed the violations of
the law or allowed such violations to be committed;
d) the specific reasons and circumstances that led to
the violation of the law;
e) the opinions and considerations of the prosecutor
aimed at eliminating or eliminating the violations of the
law [13].
At this point, it is worth noting that the opinion of legal
scholar A.I. Rakhmonov that “the use of general
requirements in setting requirements for eliminating
violations of the law predetermines the official nature
of responses to prosecutors’ submissions” [
14] is
correct.
Presentations, as a rule, are formed by summarizing
information about many cases of violations of the law.
The presentation is based on a generalization of facts
about a relatively large number of violations, but it can
also be reduced to single facts [15].
According to the analysis, 158 submissions were
submitted in 2024 to address violations of the law, their
causes, and the conditions that create opportunities for
them.
In accordance with Article 42 of the Law “On the
Prosecutor’s Office”, in the event of reliable
information about the preparation of illegal actions
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
13
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijhps
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2222)
that may harm the legally protected interests, rights
and freedoms of citizens, as well as the interests of
society and the state, the prosecutor shall, in order to
prevent violations, warn officials and citizens in writing
to prevent violations of the law and explain the
responsibility for committing violations [16].
According to V.B. Yastrebov and T.V. Ashitkova, the
warning is a warning by the prosecutor to prevent
"pure" violations of the law - aimed at preventing the
commission of illegal actions and the occurrence of
negative consequences [17].
The prosecutor shall notify the superior div (official)
of the warning, as well as the employer
(administration) at the place of work, study or self-
government div of citizens at the place of residence
of the person against whom the warning was issued.
The basis for issuing a warning to an official shall be
only reliable information about violations that may lead
to the commission of a crime and damage to the
interests of the state or society or the rights and
freedoms of citizens protected by law.
In general, a warning should be one of the minimum
documents of prosecutorial control. Since such a
measure should be applied only if there is reliable
information about the commission of violations of the
law.
The prosecutor has the right to file a lawsuit with the
court to protect the rights and legitimate interests of
legal entities and individuals and the state in cases of
damage caused by arbitrary occupation of land or
illegal use of land.
The prosecutor has the right to file a petition with the
court to protect the rights and legitimate interests of
citizens, legal entities and the state, in accordance with
Article 41 of the Law [18]. When investigating the
implementation of legislation on irrigated agriculture,
the prosecutor must first protect the interests of
society and the state by filing a lawsuit with the court
to recover the damage caused from the guilty parties.
In case of unprofitable use of irrigated agricultural land
or violation of legislation in this area, in accordance
with Article 50 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure,
Article 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 49
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor may
participate in cases related to legal relations related to
land or apply to the court with a statement to this
effect in order to protect the legally protected interests
of the state.
For example, during the control measures carried out,
2,059 applications filed with courts across the republic
were satisfied. During the investigation, 14 court
decisions on the demolition of illegal structures in
Surkhandarya, 5 in Syrdarya, and 3 in Karakalpakstan
were enforced[19].
Also, Article 39 of the Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office”
provides that the prosecutor has the authority to issue
a decision to initiate a criminal case, administrative or
disciplinary liability, depending on the nature of the
violation committed by an official or citizen, and in
order to make a decision on administrative liability, the
person who committed the offense must have
committed the actions provided for in Articles 60, 601
of the Code of Administrative Responsibility of the
Republic of Uzbekistan (hereinafter referred to as the
CAC). Prosecutors are required to separately
investigate whether the authorized div has made the
correct decision to initiate a case on administrative
liability for the offenses provided for in this article.
Article 60, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic
of Uzbekistan stipulates that if administrative liability is
established for an offense resulting from the arbitrary
use of land, water, flora or fauna, or the conclusion of
transactions or other actions that directly or covertly
violate the right of ownership of land and other natural
resources (except for subsoil and groundwater), or the
transfer of the right to special use of nature to others,
citizens may be fined from five to ten times the basic
calculation amount, and officials - from ten to fifteen
times the basic calculation amount, or administrative
arrest for a term of up to fifteen days.
In Part 2 of this Article, the arbitrary seizure of land
plots, including the use of them without legal rights to
these land plots, shall be punishable by a fine of thirty
times the basic calculation amount for citizens, and
seventy times the basic calculation amount for officials.
Or in Part 3 of this Article, the implementation of
construction work on land plots adjacent to or not
adjacent to the allocated land plot, which was
arbitrarily seized, shall be grounds for imposing a fine
of two hundred times the basic calculation amount for
citizens, and four hundred times the basic calculation
amount for officials.
Based on the principle of humanity, the legislator has
established that a person who has committed the
offense contemplated in Part 2 of Article 60 of the
Criminal Code for the first time shall be exempted from
liability if he ensures the return of the arbitrarily
occupied land plot and eliminates the consequences of
the arbitrarily occupied land plot.
In addition, within the scope of the direct subject of the
study, Article 601 of the Code of Civil Procedure
establishes administrative liability for failure to take
measures to prevent the arbitrary seizure of irrigated
land.
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
14
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijhps
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2222)
Failure to take measures by the landowner, land user
or lessee to prevent the arbitrary seizure of irrigated
land in accordance with the provisions of this article,
including failure to notify the competent authorities of
the fact of the arbitrary seizure of the land plot, shall
entail the imposition of a fine on citizens in the amount
of twenty times the basic calculation amount, and on
officials - in the amount of fifty times the basic
calculation amount.
The administrative offenses specified in these
provisions fall under the authority of the bodies of the
Cadastre Agency under the State Tax Committee of the
Republic of Uzbekistan.
When studying the legislation of foreign countries in
this regard, for example, Article 136 of the Civil Code of
the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes administrative
liability for the illegal seizure or exchange of state land
plots, as well as the implementation of other
transactions that directly or indirectly violate the
state's right to land ownership, as well as failure to
return temporarily occupied state land in a timely
manner, and is punishable by a fine of seventy-five
monthly calculation indices for individuals, one
hundred for officials, small business entities or non-
profit organizations, one hundred and fifty for medium-
sized business entities, and seven hundred for large
business entities [20].
Or Article 7.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of
the Russian Federation also establishes liability for the
arbitrary seizure of land plots, mainly with a fine [21].
It can be seen that the fine is high when compared to
national legislation.
In addition, the administrative legislation of India, the
USA, China, Germany, and Turkey provides for fines and
other penalties for the arbitrary seizure of irrigated
land, and in the countries studied, similar to national
legislation, the arbitrary seizure of land is considered a
crime.
The legislation uses administrative penalties (fines) as
the main measure. The processes of returning the
acquired lands are carried out through the protection
of the law. When it comes to the specifics, it can be
seen that the amount of the fine is low in the national
legislation. In our opinion, taking into account the
interests of the state and society, it is advisable to
increase the amount of fines for offenses such as the
arbitrary occupation of irrigated agricultural lands and
introduce electronic monitoring tools.
As a result of the inspections conducted on the
implementation of the CAC, it was revealed that 54 sq.
m. of the land area belonging to the branch of the
family polyclinic No. 7 located in the district was
arbitrarily occupied by citizen H.M., and on 12.04.2023
a lawsuit was filed with the Inter-District Court of the
Federal District Police Office.
In addition, prosecutors, within the scope of their
powers, must make a firm decision in the event of a
criminal offense stipulated by Article 197 of the
Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan
(hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code). Article
197 of the Criminal Code stipulates that in cases where
a violation of the conditions for the use of land, subsoil
resources or the requirements for their protection has
resulted in grave consequences, the punishment shall
be a fine in the amount of fifty to one hundred times
the basic calculation amount, or up to three hundred
and sixty hours of compulsory community service, or up
to three years of correctional labor, or up to three years
of restriction of liberty, or up to three years of
imprisonment.
Or, Article 1971 of the Civil Code states that failure to
take measures by a landowner, land user or lessee to
prevent the arbitrary seizure of irrigated land, including
informing the authorized bodies about the fact of the
arbitrary seizure of a land plot, if committed after the
imposition of an administrative penalty for such an act,
is punishable by a fine in the amount of two hundred to
four hundred times the basic calculation amount, or by
compulsory community service for up to three hundred
and sixty hours, or by correctional labor for up to two
years, or by restriction of liberty for a term of one to
three years, or by imprisonment for a term of up to
three years.
The legislator notes that in cases where the above-
mentioned criminal offense is committed repeatedly or
by a group of persons in advance by collusion, it shall
be punishable by a fine in the amount of four hundred
to six hundred times the basic calculation amount, or
by correctional labor for a term of two to three years,
or by restriction of liberty for a term of three to five
years, or by imprisonment for a term of three to five
years.
Based on humanitarian principles, the law provides
that a person who has committed a crime for the first
time is exempted from liability if he ensures the return
of the arbitrarily occupied land plot and eliminates the
consequences of the arbitrarily occupied land plot. Of
course, this requires that the person who committed
the crime voluntarily ensures the return of the
arbitrarily occupied land plot and eliminates the
damage caused.
Also, Article 2296 of the Civil Code stipulates that
selling or otherwise transferring the right to an
irrigated land plot or part thereof to another person in
violation of the law is punishable by a fine of four
hundred to five hundred times the basic calculation
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
15
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijhps
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2222)
amount, or deprivation of certain rights, restriction of
freedom for a term of two to five years, or
imprisonment for a term of up to five years.
The same act, if it a) causes significant damage to land;
b) is committed by a group of persons in advance by a
conspiracy; c) is committed repeatedly or by a
dangerous recidivist; d) is committed by taking
advantage of an official position, shall be punishable by
a fine of five hundred to six hundred times the basic
calculation amount or by deprivation of certain rights
for a term of five to seven years.
The same act:
a) caused significant damage to land;
b) was committed by an especially dangerous recidivist;
c) by an organized group or in its interests, - shall be
punishable by deprivation of certain rights and
imprisonment for a term of eight to ten years.
It is established that a person who commits a crime
provided for in parts one and two of this article for the
first time shall not be subject to punishment in the form
of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty if he
ensures the return of the land plot and the introduction
of the land into agricultural circulation.
In comparison with the legislation of foreign countries,
Article 136 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of
Kazakhstan establishes liability for violation of land
legislation, irrigated lands are given special legal
protection by the state due to their importance, and
more severe penalties are applied in cases where the
illegal occupation of state lands causes environmental
damage [22].
When compared to the criminal legislation of Russia,
India, and the United States, it can be observed that the
legislation of Russia and Kazakhstan imposes more
severe penalties for cases of causing environmental
damage.
In addition, the national legislation establishes liability
for irrigated agricultural lands or crimes committed in
connection with land under 7 articles. In our opinion,
this creates conditions for corruption factors.
Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to protect
lands by reducing the articles and strengthening the
penalties for this type of crime in the national
legislation, thereby strengthening prosecutorial control
in this area.
As a result of the investigations conducted by the
prosecutor's office in this area, it was found that by the
decision of the district khokim dated June 27, 2019, the
boiler house building, food storage and enterprise
buildings of the former multidisciplinary hospital
belonging to the district medical association were
taken into the ownership of the district khokim without
the permission of the ministry, contrary to the
requirements of decision No. PP-4055, with the
condition of their subsequent demolition, the buildings
and structures were demolished, and in 6 cases, a total
of 0.075 hectares of land were sold through electronic
online auctions.
As a result, the company’s officials illegally demolished
buildings and structures worth a total of 109.9 million
soums on the balance sheet of the Medical Association,
and the land was taken out of the medical a
ssociation’s
possession.
A criminal case has been initiated under Article 167,
Part 2, Subparagraphs “a, b, d” and Article 205, Part 2,
Subparagraph “a” of the Criminal Code.
In general, it is advisable to pay more attention to the
judicial consideration of disputes arising from irrigated
agricultural lands, since the legal consequences of
disputes in this area are directly related to causing
damage to the state.
The effectiveness of prosecutorial control increases
when conducting control inspections to identify the
facts of eliminating the identified violations of the law.
In particular, it is important to monitor the
implementation of the requirements set forth in the
submissions submitted by prosecutors. Prosecutors
often do not pay attention to the formal review of
powers, and the effectiveness of the measures taken
based on the results of the review of powers is not
always analyzed. Naturally, indifference to the
measures taken weakens the role of prosecutorial
control.
The prosecutor’s activities in i
dentifying and
eliminating violations of legislation on irrigated
agricultural lands should not be limited to
implementing the above-mentioned measures, but
should also help identify the causes and conditions of
these violations and take measures to eliminate them.
For the effectiveness of prosecutorial control, it is of
great importance for the prosecutor to apply effective
measures in a timely manner, to determine their
content, the adequacy of improper actions, the
elimination of violations, and the reasons and
conditions for their implementation.
Often, during investigations, prosecutors can also
identify illegal legal documents of state authorities and
local authorities that regulate legal relations in the
analyzed area.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it can be said that in organizing and
implementing supervisory activities, the prosecutor
must correctly use the forces and means assigned to
him in order to fulfill the tasks assigned to him in an
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
16
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijhps
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2222)
excellent manner, to do as much work as possible in the
least amount of time, and at the same time to do it with
high quality. We believe that when implementing
supervisory work, it is appropriate to separate the main
thing from the secondary work, to concentrate the
efforts of employees, to prioritize the main problems
and pay attention to their successful resolution.
REFERENCES
Мирзиёев Ш.М. Конституция ва қонун устуворлиги –
ҳуқуқий
демократик
давлат
ва
фуқаролик
жамиятининг энг муҳим мезонидир // Президент
Шавкат Мирзиёевнинг Ўзбекистон Республикаси
Конституцияси қабул қилинганининг 27 йиллигига
бағишланган тантанали маросимдаги маърузаси
(07.12.2019). https://president.uz/uz/3119
Йўлдошев Н.Т. Янги Ўзбекистон прокуратураси:
ислоҳотларнинг дастлабки самаралари // “Халқ
сўзи”, 2021. 27 август,184
-185-
сони.
Ўзбекистон
Республикасининг
“Прокуратура
тўғрисида”ги
Қонуни
//
Қонун ҳужжатлари
маълумотлари миллий базаси, 2001 йил 29 август,
04.12.2019 й.,23.01.2020 й., 03/20/603/0071
-
сон.
Д.Ю.Хабибуллаев
ва
бошқалар.
Прокуроар
назорати. дарслик. Тошкент. ТДЮУ., 2019 й. 4
7-
б.
Ашиткова
Т.В.
Прокурорский
надзор
за
исполнением земельного законодательства. Дисс.
на сосискание ученой степении канд. юрид. наук.
12.00.11. Москва. 2008. –
С. 171.
Звирбуль В.К. Прокурорский надзор в борьбе
сперступлениями. Москва. 1971.
-
С. 3
2.
М.Ўрозбоев. Прокурор назоратининг ўзига хос
хусуситялари. / Наука и научный потенциал –
Основа Устойчивого инновационного развития
общества (Ташкент, 15 мая 2022 года). 127 б.
Ер ресурслари талон
-
торож қилинишининг олдини
олиш
бошқармасининг
умумлашма
маълумотномаси
Мелкумов В.Г. Общий надзор прокуратуры.
-
Душанбе. 1963.
-
С 47.
Ашиткова
Т.В.
Прокурорский
надзор
за
исполнением земельного законадательства //
Диссертация. спец. 12.00.11. –
Москва 2008, –
С. 175.
Мелкумов В.С. Советская прокуратура и проблемы
общего надзора. Москва 1965, С. 153
Ашиткова
Т.В.
Прокурорский
надзор
за
исполнением земельного законадательства //
Диссертация. спец. 12.00.11. –
Москва 2008, –
С. 175
Абдухакимов М.Т. Ер тўғрисидаги қонун
ҳужжатларининг ижроси устидан прокурор
назоратини такомиллаштириш масалалари //
Юридик фанлар доктори илмий даражасини олиш
учун тайёрланган диссертация.
-
Тошкент. 2023. –
97
б.
Рахмонов А.И. О некоторых формах работы
милиции, прокуратуры и суда рафона выявлению
причин и устранению условий, способствовавших
совершению преступлений. // Вопросы борьбы с
перступностью. Выпуск. 8. Москва 1968. С. 142.
Ашиткова
Т.В.
Прокурорский
надзор
за
исполнением земельного законодательства //
Диссертация. Спец. 12.00.11. Москва. 2008.
-
С. 175.
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг
“Прокуратура
тўғрисида”ги Қонуни. Тошкент, “Yuridik adabiyotlar
publish” нашриёти 2021. 53
-54-
бетлар.
Ястребов В.Б., Ашиткова Т.В. Прокурорский надзор
за исполнением законодательства о крестьянских
(фермерских)
хозяйствах:
методические
рекомендации. Москва 1997, С. 21.
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг
“Прокуратура
тўғрисида”ги Қонуни // https://lex
.uz/acts/106197
Ер ресурслари талон
-
торож қилинишининг олдини
олиш
бошқармасининг
умумлашма
маълумотномаси
https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K1400000235
http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docdiv&nd=1020742
77
https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K1400000226
