Having an electricity line or pipeline pass through a property does not necessarily require ownership of the entire parcel to pass to the administration. However, in an easement expropriation in which use is restricted, the compensation is not determined by looking only at the square meters the line occupies; the reduction that the right causes in the property’s total value is examined. The owner must first distinguish the route, the scope of the right to be established and the area whose ownership is to be taken.
What does easement expropriation mean?
Article 4 of Expropriation Law No. 2942 (Kamulaştırma Kanunu) allows, where it is sufficient for the purpose of the public service, an easement to be established over a particular part, height or depth of the property instead of taking ownership. Under this method, the owner continues to own the property but becomes subject to the restrictions on use that the easement requires. The type, duration and route of the right, and how it will be shown in the land registry, must be understood from the concrete act.
The corridor through which an electricity line passes and the place where a pylon or transformer facility stands may not be the subject of the same legal act. It is possible to acquire ownership for the pylon site and an easement for the line corridor. The presence of a single total figure in the administration’s offer does not remove this distinction. The owner should not make an assessment without learning for which right and which surface area the amount is offered.
In a pipeline as well, the permanent operating corridor, the right of access for maintenance and the area to be used temporarily during construction are different. Where the temporary work area is wider than the permanent easement area, it may not be correct to accept all losses as included in a single amount. The project map, the easement plan and the actual use should be read together.
Does remaining the owner in the land registry mean that use is unchanged?
No. A narrowing of the area on which building is possible, limits on planting trees, the need for maintenance vehicles to enter or a ban on deep excavation may affect economic use. On the other hand, it cannot be assumed that all use is completely prohibited merely because the line exists. The source of the restriction should be shown through the project, legislation and technical safety conditions.
If there is a contract consenting to the establishment of the easement or a right previously established, their scope is important. An increase in the capacity of the old line, a change in its route or an expansion of the corridor may constitute a new interference. A previous payment is not regarded as consent given in advance for every later use outside its scope.
By what method is the compensation determined?
The approach in Article 11 of the Law is the relationship between the value of the property before the easement and the reduction in value caused by the easement. First, a valuation appropriate to the nature of the property is made; then it is reasoned to what extent the right reduces that value. Different methods come into play, such as comparable sales for land and an income-based review for agricultural land.
The expert should not choose a ratio merely by saying “a line passes through.” The parcel’s surface area, its geometry, whether the line passes along the edge or through the middle, building possibilities, current use and the conditions of the easement must be assessed. A corridor of the same width may not have the same economic effect on a large, regularly shaped field and on a small building parcel.
Is a fixed percentage applied in every file?
No. Statements found on the internet such as 35 percent or 50 percent are not fixed rates that will be deducted directly from the total value of every parcel or that must necessarily be paid. Case law may contain assessments for particular types of property connected with the easement area; whether their denominator is the total parcel or the easement area must be read separately. The Law does not set a universal fixed rate.
The report must explain how it derives the ratio from the concrete features. Nor can every possibility thought to arise from the line in the future be accepted in advance as a loss. Legally possible building is distinguished from a hypothetical investment expectation. The current zoning status, the approved project and the calculation of the usable area are important for this reason.
How are the pylon site, tree damage and temporary use separated?
The ownership compensation for the pylon site and the effect on the remaining use due to the easement should be shown as separate items. The same loss should not be calculated twice; conversely, different losses should not be made invisible under a single item. The cause and scope of tree felling, loss of crops, damage to the irrigation line and losses arising outside the work area during construction are examined separately.
Photographs taken before the line was built and agricultural records are particularly valuable for temporary losses. If there is an undertaking to restore the land to its former state after construction is finished, it is documented whether it was fulfilled. Payment for permanent loss of value does not automatically remove an independent loss that the contractor later causes.
What review do real Court of Cassation decisions require?
In the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi) of 10 January 2023, E.2022/9637, K.2023/141, the assessment of the nature of the property, its entire surface area, its geometric situation and the energy line route in determining the easement compensation was found appropriate, and the regional court of appeal decision was affirmed. This decision is not a general tariff approving the same rate of loss of value in every file. Full-text reproduction of the decision.
In the Chamber’s decision of 20 July 2005, E.2005/7284, K.2005/8991, on the other hand, the rendering of a judgment without sufficiently investigating the nature of the property and without calculating the effect of the easement on the total value was counted among the grounds for quashing. The decision also criticizes the failure to take the share ratio into account. All the details of the old decision concerning the expert panel or the electricity legislation of that period should not be carried over unchanged to today’s procedure; the principle drawn on here is the review of the valuation reasoning and of the compensation attributable to the share. Reasoning and result of quashing.
How are the routes of objection and litigation distinguished?
Objection to the route and the expropriation decision
Issues of the lawfulness of the act, such as public benefit, authority, route selection or proportionality, fall within administrative judicial review. The owner’s claim that “another route is more suitable” must be supported by technical alternatives and comparable data. A compensation that is merely low is a dispute different from the annulment of the act.
The special filing period in Article 14 of Law No. 2942 and the notification or announcement regime that determines its start are checked. It is not correct to calculate the thirty-day period automatically from the start of negotiations with the administration or from the arrival of the field team. Depending on the type of act, the competent court and the special procedure are determined separately. The annulment of an urgent expropriation decision and the establishment of an ordinary easement are not the same subject of litigation.
Objection to a low determination of compensation
If no agreement is reached at the purchase stage, the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) at the place where the property is located examines the compensation determination and registration action to be filed by the administration. The owner’s defense must show the missing area or the wrong ratio with documents. The statement “the compensation is low,” without explaining which data in the report are wrong, does not constitute an effective technical objection.
The period notified in the court summons for defense and evidence and the period for objecting to the expert report are tracked separately. A file calendar is kept for the notification of the report, the supplementary report, the on-site examination and the appeal stages. An administrative annulment application filed in time is also notified to the compensation file; files proceeding in two branches of the judiciary are not left unaware of each other.
If the line was laid without expropriation
In this case, before objecting to the compensation for an existing easement, the legal basis for the administration’s interference is investigated. An old easement in the land registry, a contract signed by the owner and earlier court decisions are obtained. If no basis is found, claims for compensation or for removal of the interference may be assessed within the scope of de facto expropriation (kamulaştırmasız el atma).
The company actually operating the line, the owner of the line and the administration authorized to expropriate are not always the same person. Directing the action solely according to the logo on the pylon is risky. By examining privatization, transfer and operating relationships, the legal entity responsible for the interference is identified. The date the line was built and earlier disputes are also important for the procedure to be applied.
Which documents should be prepared for the expert examination?
| Document | Matter to be examined |
|---|---|
| Current and past land registry records | Earlier easements, owner and share information |
| Easement and expropriation map | Corridor, pylon site, depth and surface area |
| Approved project and technical conditions | Restrictions on building, planting, maintenance and excavation |
| Zoning status and construction permits | Change in the legally usable area |
| Agricultural income, crop and irrigation records | Current use and effect on production |
| Before-and-after photographs and measurements | Conformity of the actual works to the project |
At the on-site examination, measuring only the corridor on paper may not be sufficient. Functional elements such as the access road, the turning area and irrigation access are also discussed. The necessary expertise is determined according to the engineering and valuation issue in the file. Obtaining an expert opinion does not replace the court’s expert examination; however, it can help in preparing concrete technical objections.
How are the judgment, payment and land registry procedures followed?
The judgment must show the easement area in a form suitable for enforcement. The conformity of the plan sent to the land registry with the judgment, the owners’ shares and the type of right established are checked. Depositing the compensation in the bank and making it available for the rightholder’s use are not the same stage. The payment letter and any reason for a block are followed from the file.
The appeal regimes for compensation and for registration should not be regarded as the same. Nor should it be assumed that the 2026 annulment of the security requirement concerning compensation for de facto expropriation applies directly to every duly conducted easement expropriation. Finality, the payment application and the stay of enforcement are assessed separately according to the nature of the judgment.
Conclusion
In easement expropriation, the main issue is not merely how many square meters fall under the line. The scope of the right, the property’s current and legally possible use, the reduction in total value and independent loss items must be examined together. The correct route of litigation must be chosen for the lawfulness of the route and the adequacy of the compensation; time limits, technical evidence and land registry practice should be followed within the same file system.
Related articles: Compensation for Energy and Pipeline Easements; Compensation for Buildings, Trees and Improvements; Determination of Expropriation Compensation and Title Registration Action; Loss of Value in the Remaining Part in Partial Expropriation
Frequently Asked Questions
When an electricity line passes through, does my title pass to the administration?
In establishing an easement, ownership as a rule remains with you. Ownership expropriation may separately have been carried out for the pylon or facility site; the map and the decision should be examined.
Is only the value of the line corridor paid?
The reduction that the easement causes in the property’s total value is taken as the basis. The corridor area is an important datum; it does not on its own explain the whole calculation.
Is a 35 percent payment made on every agricultural parcel?
No. A fixed percentage cannot be applied without determining on which value or area the rate is considered and what the concrete restrictions are.
Can I demand the removal of the line?
The legal basis of the interference, the existing easement and the litigation route to be followed are examined. An objection to the compensation alone does not lead to the removal of the line.
If a new line is added to an old line, is the earlier payment sufficient?
The scope of the earlier right and payment is decisive. If the route or the burden of use has expanded, the new interference is assessed separately.
Sources and legal bases
- Expropriation Law No. 2942 (Kamulaştırma Kanunu): Articles 4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 27 and additional Article 4; accessible consolidated text.
- Court of Cassation 5th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 5. HD), E.2022/9637, K.2023/141, 10.01.2023: full reproduction of the decision.
- Court of Cassation 5th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 5. HD), E.2005/7284, K.2005/8991, 20.07.2005: reproduction of the reasoning and judgment.
Legislation and source review date: 15 October 2026.