The administration may withdraw from an expropriation in whole or in part under the conditions set by law, but the consequences of withdrawal depend on the stage the procedure has reached. A decision to withdraw taken before ownership has been transferred is not the same act as returning to the former owner a property that has already been registered in the administration’s name. Litigation costs, the compensation paid, the land registry record and any damage to the property must be assessed together.
What kind of act is withdrawal from expropriation?
Article 21 of Law No. 2942 governs the administration’s unilateral withdrawal by decision of the competent authorities that issued and approved the expropriation decision. A municipality or another public body may raise the issue by changing its project, when the need for the investment disappears, or when it decides not to continue the expropriation. However, an oral statement by a staff member does not, on its own, replace a valid withdrawal decision.
For the owner, the first question is whether the decision has actually been taken. The decision of the competent body, the approval act, and the date and scope of the decision should be requested. It must be clear whether the withdrawal covers the whole parcel or only a specific part of it. In projects involving several parcels, one should not assume that a decision issued for a neighboring parcel also covers one’s own property.
Does a halted project mean the expropriation has been abandoned?
The closing of a construction site, the lack of an allocated budget or the postponement of a work program is not always a legal withdrawal. The expropriation decision may remain in force; the lawsuit or the annotation in the land registry may continue. The owner should not allow deadlines to lapse in reliance on de facto inactivity. The legal position in the file should be clarified with written documents.
Similarly, it is examined whether a short petition submitted in a compensation determination case satisfies all the requirements of a formal decision by the competent administrative authority. The administration’s waiver of the claim, withdrawal of the lawsuit, striking of the file from the docket for inactivity, and withdrawal from expropriation are different institutions. Without knowing which act was performed, the same name cannot be given to all the consequences.
Why must Article 21 be distinguished from Article 22?
Although Article 21 speaks of withdrawal at every stage of the expropriation, Article 22 specifically governs the situation where the need ceases to exist after the expropriation has become final. The two provisions must be read together according to the timing of the act and whether ownership has passed to the administration. In particular, it cannot be accepted that, once registration has taken place, the register simply reverts to its former state merely because the administration says “we have withdrawn.”
The current starting point in the first sentence of Article 22 is the finality of the expropriation. It is wrong to treat the finality of the compensation and the finality of the expropriation as the same date in every case. In legal scholarship, the temporal boundary between the two articles after the 2014 amendment is discussed separately. It would therefore not be correct to transfer the account of an older decision to a new case without taking later statutory amendments into account.
| Status of the file | Main issue to examine |
|---|---|
| Withdrawal from expropriation before registration | Competent decision, outcome of the case, costs and annotation |
| Need ceases after registration in the administration’s name | Return, notice and time-limit conditions under Article 22 |
| No action taken for the intended purpose over many years | The separate right of reacquisition under Article 23 |
| Partial withdrawal | The new boundary between the portions taken and released |
What should be done if a notice of return has arrived?
Following the notice under Article 22, the three-month period for payment and reacquisition is important for the owner or the heirs. The general rule is a refund of the amount received, together with statutory interest running from the day of payment. The law separately provides that no interest is charged if the return takes place within one year after the expropriation and the compensation have become final. Which date governs which consequence must be carefully distinguished.
The article does not apply if five years have passed since the expropriation became final. In addition, declining to reacquire the property has an effect on the right under Article 23. Treating the notice received as an ordinary sale offer may therefore lead to a loss of rights. The calculation of the amount, the date of service and the steps required for the land registry procedure should be planned together. The special transfer rules that apply where another administration requests the property for a public service are also examined separately.
Who pays the costs if the administration withdraws during the lawsuit?
Article 21 provides that, where withdrawal occurs during the lawsuit, the litigation costs, court fees and the attorney’s fee, which the court determines as a fixed amount having regard to the work and the importance of the matter, are to be borne by the administration. The owner should not assume that the costs will be paid automatically once the withdrawal is recorded. The court must issue an express ruling on costs, and the receivable must be collectible.
Site inspection, expert, notification and other litigation expenses in the file are assessed on the basis of their documentation. The attorney’s fee that the court imposes on the opposing party is not the same as the contractual fee between the owner and the lawyer. The terms of the agreement and the ruling on litigation costs should be examined separately. No general assurance can be given that every expense will be recovered in full from the administration.
Is every loss caused by withdrawal compensated?
The cost obligation expressly regulated by the law is not an automatic right to compensation covering every economic expectation. Where a claim is made for a sale that did not take place, financing costs or inability to use the property, the existence of the loss, the legal basis and the causal link are examined. A claim for costs and a claim for loss arising from another act may rest on separate legal grounds.
The period during which the owner could not use the property, whether the administration actually took possession, and by what act use was restricted are all important. A properly conducted expropriation procedure and an unlawful de facto interference by the administration should not be treated as the same. Without identifying the type of claim, demanding all heads of loss from the same court solely on the basis of the withdrawal article may create problems of jurisdiction and procedure.
What should be done if the property has been damaged?
Article 24 provides a special deduction where buildings, fixed installations and crops or trees on a property that has been released or reacquired have been demolished, removed or have fallen into ruin. The former owner or the heir may request that the difference calculated by reference to the value on the date of expropriation be deducted from the expropriation compensation that they will pay. This provision requires the current condition of the property to be documented.
Old photographs, valuation reports, building and tree inventories and current site inspection findings are assessed together. The record drawn up when the administration hands the property over should state the current condition clearly. It is compared when the damage occurred and which elements were taken into account in the expropriation compensation. If the same element is sought both as a deduction from the refund amount and again under a separate heading, the risk of duplication is assessed.
Which court has jurisdiction in a withdrawal or return dispute?
Article 24 of the Law states that disputes arising from the application of Articles 21, 22 and 23, together with Article 24 itself, are to be resolved in the judicial courts. Within the framework of Article 37, the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) at the location of the property is important. The fact that the administration has issued a letter or a decision does not mean that the dispute always belongs to the administrative courts.
By contrast, a request to annul the expropriation decision on the ground that it was unlawful from the outset is different. What matters is less the heading of the petition than which right and which result is being sought. The legal characterization must be made clear with respect to the refund of compensation, registration of the title deed in the former owner’s name, recovery of costs and any independent claim for loss.
A real decision: the judicial route when a return request is rejected
In its decision of June 7, 2021, E.2021/202, K.2021/356, the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi) examined a lawsuit filed after a request for the return of an expropriated property was rejected. Although the claim was framed as the annulment of an administrative letter, the court held that the judicial courts have jurisdiction because of the special regulation in Articles 22 and 24.
This decision is not a ruling on the merits establishing that the property must necessarily be returned. The court determined which branch of the judiciary should resolve the dispute. The decision should therefore be used for the assessment of jurisdiction, not as proof that the conditions for return have been met. Full official decision.
How are the land registry and payment procedures completed?
If no registration has taken place, the withdrawal decision is reflected in the relevant land registry records and in the pending case file. If there is another precautionary measure or a restriction on disposal in the register, their bases are examined separately. The removal of one entry does not mean that all encumbrances have been lifted. At the end of the procedure, a current land registry record should be obtained and the parcel, share and entries checked.
If registration has taken place, the process requiring a transfer back or a court decision must be completed. Refund of the compensation paid, bank interest, statutory interest, any deduction for damage and handover should not be pursued separately from one another. In the calculation prepared by the administration, principal and interest should be shown separately, and the start and end dates should be explained. If it is unclear which provision the total requested for the refund is based on, a written explanation is requested.
In a partial withdrawal, the new boundaries must be clear in the technical documents. It is determined whether the released portion will remain in the old parcel, whether a new parcel will be created and how the existing compensation calculation will change. A mismatch between the map and the court decision may later complicate the land registry procedure. It is therefore not enough to focus only on the monetary agreement.
Conclusion
Withdrawal from expropriation does not end all of the owner’s problems with a single act. The scope of the competent decision, the registration stage, costs, the compensation to be refunded and the physical condition of the property must be examined together. By separating withdrawal under Article 21 from the return under Article 22 and the right of reacquisition under Article 23, the right claim should be brought in the right judicial forum.
Related articles: Reacquisition of Expropriated Property: Use Contrary to Its Purpose, the Five-Year Period and the Right to Sue; Annulment Action Against Expropriation: Public Interest, Filing Deadline and Stay of Execution; Removal of the Expropriation Annotation from the Land Registry: Six-Month Period, Application and Lawsuit; Late Payment of Expropriation Compensation: Interest, Loss of Value and Routes of Application
Frequently Asked Questions
Must the administration obtain my consent in order to withdraw from the expropriation?
Article 21 governs unilateral withdrawal. However, the stage of the procedure and the conditions for return after registration are assessed separately.
Does the case end when the administration’s lawyer says “we have withdrawn”?
The competent decision, the statement submitted to the court and the ruling the court will issue must be examined. An oral statement alone is not sufficient.
Does the property automatically revert in the land registry upon withdrawal?
No. The land registry procedures must be completed according to the registration status and the applicable return procedure.
Is it possible to refund the expropriation compensation without interest?
If the special one-year condition in Article 22 is met, non-charging of interest comes into question. In other cases, the relevant interest rule and dates are examined.
Must I necessarily apply to the administrative court against the rejection of my return request?
No. There is a special jurisdiction rule in favor of the judicial courts for disputes arising from the application of Articles 21–24.
Sources
- Expropriation Law No. 2942: Articles 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 37.
- Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, E.2021/202, K.2021/356, June 7, 2021: official full text.
- Sencer Abdullah Akkoyunlu, “Withdrawal from Expropriation: Application of Articles 21 and 22 of the Expropriation Law” (Kamulaştırmadan Vazgeçme: Kamulaştırma Kanununun 21 ve 22’nci Maddelerinin Uygulanması), Akdeniz University Faculty of Law Journal, 2022.
Legislation and sources last checked: October 15, 2026.