Beekeeper’s Land Seized After Court Rules Beekeeping Doesn’t Qualify as Agriculture

A Kazakh entrepreneur’s land has been confiscated after a court ruled that beekeeping does not qualify as an agricultural activity. The Talgar District Court made the decision, which was later upheld by the Almaty Regional Court of Appeal, Orda.kz reports. 

Farmer Samat Kulchikov had his five-hectare plot seized after the Department of Land Resources Management (DLRM) accused him of misusing it. The DLRM claimed that the wooden and straw structures on the site resembled glamping accommodations used to host tourists, rather than agricultural facilities.

Kulchikov’s lawyer, Murat Adam, said the trial was riddled with procedural violations.

The plaintiff did not provide any compelling evidence that the land was not being used for its intended purpose. In addition, they presented a protocol on an administrative offence for failure to use the land for its intended purpose. It states that there are glamping structures on the land. However, the term ‘glamping’ is not defined in Kazakhstan’s legal framework.the lawyer noted. 

The lawyer contacted the Ministry of Tourism, which confirmed that there is no official definition of “glamping” in Kazakhstan’s legislation.

This should mean the term cannot be legitimately used in administrative violation protocols.

Judge Kenbayeva, who conducted the hearing in Kazakh, held an off-site inspection at Kulchikov’s land, but did so with procedural violations. No photo or video evidence was recorded, and no official protocol of the separate procedural action was prepared, even though it is mandatory in such cases. Under the law, the absence of such a protocol is an independent and unconditional ground to overturn the lower court’s decision. I raised this issue during the appellate hearing, said Murat Adam. 

Moreover, in the ruling, the judge of the first instance noted that the site contained “buildings resembling houses.” However, according to the lawyer, the photos clearly show that these are not permanent structures but simple huts, which, under architectural regulations, do not require construction permits.

These huts, he explained, are used for storing agricultural tools and equipment.

Additionally, even commercially defined glamping sites must meet certain standards, like offering showers and toilets, according to the Association of Camping Tourism and Caravanning.

None of the structures on Kulchikov’s land meet those criteria.

[attachment=96:1749800461_otvet-associacii-kjemplinga-na-advokat-zapros-11_04_2025.pdf] 

The lawyer argues that the on-site inspection was not conducted objectively, thoroughly, or with due consideration of all the evidence.

The appellate court upheld the original decision, but with a changed rationale. 

Murat Adam said he wasn’t surprised by the outcome, suggesting that powerful individuals with vested interests in the mountain land may have been behind the effort to take it.

Of course, we disagree with the ruling and will file a cassation appeal in Astana on July 1. We know of cases where higher courts overturned lower court decisions on land seizures at the request of the land management department. There is such a thing as 'uniform judicial practice,' and conflicting rulings cannot be made in similar cases, the lawyer said. 

He also noted that Kulchikov’s legal team has an official response from the Ministry of Agriculture of Kazakhstan stating that beekeeping is indeed recognized as a branch of agriculture.

Original Author: Danil Utyupin