KÜHEYLAN HUKUK
Confiscation Without Expropriation and Objection to Expropriation Cost, Expropriation Law No. 2942, art. 10, 14, Temporary m. 6 and Annex m. 1 and Actual and Legal Seizure, Determination of Price and Jurisdiction in Charge of Judicial Decisions (2026) Updated as of 2026
The administration can only acquire a real estate by making a public interest decision and paying the expropriation fee. When expropriation is carried out through procedure, the owner defends the real value by objecting to the expert reports in the price determination and registration case filed by the administration; He/she may file an annulment lawsuit against the expropriation process itself in the administrative court within thirty days from the notification. If the administration has actually taken possession of the real estate by building a road, school or facility without expropriating it, the owner may demand compensation in the Civil Court of First Instance; This request is not subject to statute of limitations. In the seizures between 1956 and 1983, first applying for conciliation was a condition for litigation. The competent jurisdiction in "legal confiscation" cases, which occur on immovable properties that have been reserved for public service with a zoning plan but have not been expropriated for years, is controversial and the Court of Disputes considers the administrative judiciary to be competent.
Article 46 of the Constitution makes expropriation possible in cases where the public interest requires it and on the condition that the real consideration is paid in advance. This assurance is the basic principle that the owner relies on against the illegal seizure of real estate by the administration. In practice, three different situations are encountered:
Proper expropriation The administration makes a public interest decision, tries to compromise, and if there is no agreement, files a lawsuit to determine the price. Defense in the price determination case; annulment of the transaction in administrative jurisdiction
actual laying of hands The administration builds or uses roads, parks and facilities on the real estate without expropriating it. Case for prevention of payment or seizure in the Civil Court of First Instance
legal seizure The real estate is reserved for public service in the zoning plan, but is not expropriated for a long time. Application to the administration and lawsuit for compensation at the competent jurisdiction
In accordance with Article 8 of Law No. 2942, the administration has the valuation commission determine the value of the real estate and offers the owner a compromise through purchase. The owner is not obliged to accept the price offered at this stage. The estimated price determined by the commission is not disclosed during the settlement meeting; The owner should prepare his own evaluation in advance with comparable sales and expert opinion.
If agreement cannot be reached, the administration files a lawsuit for price determination and registration in the Civil Court of First Instance where the real estate is located, in accordance with Article 10 of the Law. The court summons the real estate owner to the hearing with a letter of invitation. The owner must submit all defenses and evidence regarding the value of the real estate in writing within ten days from the notification. If no agreement is reached at the hearing, the court conducts discovery, has the expert panel evaluate it according to the criteria in Article 11 of the Law, and determines a fair price.
Objection to expert reports is the owner's most powerful tool. The main areas of discussion that determine the price are the selection of comparable sales, the land or field nature of the real estate, the zoning status and the loss of value in the remaining part due to partial expropriation. The court's registration decision is final; However, the parties may appeal and appeal regarding the price.
Pursuant to Article 14 of the Law, the owner may file a lawsuit for annulment of the expropriation transaction in the administrative jurisdiction against himself within thirty days from the notification of the court, and a lawsuit for correction in the judicial jurisdiction against material errors. If it is not documented to the court handling the price determination case that an annulment lawsuit has been filed, the expropriation process becomes final. The absence of a public interest decision and lack of authority and procedure are alleged in this case.
If the administration has opened a road on a registered immovable property without expropriating it and established a facility such as a transformer, water tank or school, the owner can choose one of two ways: to request the evacuation of the immovable property, that is, to prevent confiscation, or to demand the price of the immovable property and consent to the ownership being transferred to the administration. In accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeals Unification Board of Jurisprudence dated 16.05.1956, compensation cases filed due to confiscation without expropriation are not subject to the statute of limitations. The case is filed in the Civil Court of First Instance, where the real estate is located. The price is determined based on the value at the date of the case.
Provisional Article 6 of Law No. 2942 provides for a special procedure for immovable properties actually allocated for public service between 9 October 1956 and 4 November 1983. In these seizures, the owner or administration first resorts to compromise; Implementation of the conciliation procedure is a condition of litigation. The conciliation commission may offer the owner an exchange, development rights elsewhere, or a cash price. If an agreement cannot be reached, a lawsuit for determination of the price may be filed within three months from the date of the dispute report. In these cases, the fee and attorney's fee are determined as a lump sum and the administration's payment can be made in installments according to budget possibilities.
Provisional Article 20, added to Law No. 2942 by Law No. 7588 dated July 2, 2026, considers immovable properties actually allocated to public service without expropriation before October 8, 1956, as expropriated on the date of allocation. Claims, including the price, made for these immovable properties after January 12, 1963, will not be accepted, including pending lawsuits. This regulation requires that the date of seizure be meticulously investigated before filing a lawsuit in cases of very old seizures.
If a real estate is allocated for public services such as roads, parks, and school areas in the zoning plan, the owner cannot build on it and cannot actually sell the real estate, even if the real estate is not actually taken over. Additional article 1 of Law No. 2942 stipulates that in this case, a zoning program or implementation should be made within five years from the implementation of the implementation zoning plan, the expropriation of the real estate within the budget possibilities, or a plan change to remove the restriction.
If this obligation is not fulfilled, it has long been controversial in which jurisdiction the owner's claim for compensation will be heard. After the Constitutional Court's decision dated 20.12.2018 and numbered 2016/181 E., 2018/111 K. annulled the provision providing for administrative judicial remedies in the additional article 1, the relevant chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals directed to hear these cases in the judicial judiciary. In its decisions made in 2019 and later, the Court of Disputes accepted the administrative judiciary as responsible, stating that the source of the restriction was the zoning plan, which is an administrative action. Since the decisions of the Court of Disputes are binding, in practice, it is first applied to the relevant administration and, upon rejection or lack of response, filing a full jurisdiction lawsuit in the administrative jurisdiction is followed. Current case law must also be checked in the concrete file.
The municipality opened and asphalted a 1,200 m² section of a registered field in Çekmeköy in 2014, without expropriating it. The remaining 800 m² was divided into two parts due to the road and became unsuitable for agricultural use. Malik noticed the issue in 2026 and asked for legal support.
Since the seizure took place after 1983, general provisions apply and the request is not statute-barred. Malik may demand a fee for the 1,200 m² under the road in the Civil Court of First Instance against the municipality, based on the value on the date of the case, and agrees to have this part registered in the name of the municipality. The loss of value in the remaining 800 m² can also be claimed. Measuring the area explored during exploration by a scientific expert and carefully selecting comparable sales directly determine the price to be charged.
The settlement fee offered by the administration is low. What happens if I refuse?
The administration files a lawsuit for price determination and registration. The court determines the price through expert examination; This price may often differ from the settlement offer. Malik has the opportunity to defend the real value by objecting to the expert reports.
It has been thirty years since the road passed through my property. Can a lawsuit still be filed?
If the seizure took place after November 4, 1983, compensation for seizure without expropriation is not subject to statute of limitations. If it took place between 1956 and 1983, a reconciliation application must be made first.
Is the fee calculated according to the date of the lawsuit or the date of seizure?
As a rule, in actual seizures after 1983, the value at the date of the case is taken as basis; However, the nature of the real estate is determined according to its condition on the date of seizure. For old confiscations within the scope of temporary article 6, the special valuation rule in the law is applied.
Can one of the stakeholders file a lawsuit alone in a shared real estate?
Yes. Stakeholders may file a lawsuit demanding compensation in proportion to their shares. In the case of annulment against the expropriation process, stakeholders in joint and joint ownership have the right to file a lawsuit on their own.
Not presenting evidence and defenses regarding the value within the ten-day period in the price determination case.
Missing the thirty-day annulment lawsuit period against the expropriation process.
Filing a lawsuit directly without applying for conciliation in the seizures between 1956 and 1983.
Filing a legal seizure case in the wrong jurisdiction without examining the current jurisdictional jurisprudence.
Forgetting to claim the loss of value in the remaining part of partial expropriation.
Expropriation and non-expropriation disputes are cases where the constitutional property right of the owner and the public service need of the administration come into conflict, and technical evaluation and procedural rules are intertwined. Short defense and trial periods, special regimes that vary depending on the date of seizure, and jurisdictional disputes require that each file be handled with a separate strategy.
With its experience in administrative law and real estate law, Küheylan Law Firm offers comprehensive legal support for owners to obtain the real value, from settlement negotiations to price determination cases, from annulment cases against expropriation to claims for compensation due to actual and legal confiscation.
Important Legal Notice: This guide has been prepared for general information purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Legislation and Supreme Court practice may change over time; The unique circumstances of each dispute require a separate legal assessment. Küheylan Law Firm cannot be held responsible for the consequences that may arise from transactions based on this text.
KÜHEYLAN HUKUK