Whether compensation can be claimed for a building, tree or facility on an expropriated property depends on the legal nature of the item, on who created it, and on which valuation provision applies. The compensation for the land, the compensation for the structure, and the claim of the person who created the improvements (muhdesat) are not the same thing. In particular, it should not be assumed that a building erected on someone else's property will always be paid at its full market value.
What are improvements (muhdesat), and which items fall within this scope?
Improvements (muhdesat) are items permanently created on real property, such as buildings, facilities or planted trees. However, understanding the term in everyday language as "every expense I made on the plot" is not legally accurate. A building, a permanent facility, a wall, a greenhouse, movable equipment and an upgrade to an existing structure may not be of the same nature.
Under the approach of the Turkish Civil Code to integral parts, a permanent item on land does not, as a rule, form separate ownership independent of the ownership of the land. Even so, the person who created it may have a personal right and a compensation claim recognized by a special statute. For this reason, the legal consequence that the assertion "the improvements are mine" is aimed at must be explained.
Can every expense be the subject of an action to determine ownership of improvements?
Painting an existing house, repairing its roof or renewing its installations is different from creating a new structure. For renovation costs, the appropriate route may be an action for performance based on a contract or another source of claim, depending on the circumstances. Nor can the value of goods that can be dismantled and carried away be claimed automatically under the heading of ownership of improvements.
In its decision of December 12, 2017, E.2017/15373, K.2017/16681, the Court of Cassation 8th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi) examined the determination of ownership of certain items in an expropriation area. In the specific case, the judgment was reversed on the view that the pergola, wire fence and iron gate were not integral parts. The decision does not mean that every item with these names will be treated as movable in every file; the manner of installation and whether the item can be detached must be examined. Reasoning and outcome of the decision.
If the landowner and the person who built the structure are different, who is paid the compensation?
The first step is to distinguish the registered owner, the co-owners, the person who created the structure and the actual user. The fact that a person lives on the property does not, by itself, show that he or she paid for the construction or is entitled to receive the entire compensation for the structure. It is investigated in whose name and for whose account the structure was created.
In buildings constructed within a family, the contribution of a common decedent, payments by co-owners and later additions are also important. The claim that the whole structure was created by one person's labor should not be accepted merely on the basis of an electricity subscription or actual use. Bank transactions, invoices, permit and project records, correspondence with the contractor and witnesses with direct knowledge are assessed together.
The special provision in Article 19 of Law No. 2942
The last paragraph of Article 19 contains a special compensation regime for expropriation of places registered in the name of another person, ownerless places, or places not acquired by their possessor. Within this scope, the minimum-necessities value (asgarî levazım bedeli) applies to buildings, and the value to be assessed under Article 11 applies to trees. This provision does not ensure that the compensation for the land is also paid to the user.
The minimum-necessities value and the ordinary expropriation valuation of a building are not the same calculation. It must be explained which provision is applied and why, the capacity of the person making the claim over the structure, and the legal status of the property. An expert report that merely states a "building value" may not be enough to show which legal category the calculation belongs to.
Is no compensation paid at all for an unlicensed structure?
The permit status matters; however, neither absolute conclusion can be drawn, whether "if it is unlicensed, all claims are zero" or "if a structure exists, the full value is received." The location of the structure, the time of construction, the ownership relationship, the special provision to be applied and the existing administrative decisions are examined. A building registration certificate or a tax record likewise does not, by itself, create land ownership or a right to full compensation.
Violation of zoning legislation, the physical existence of the structure and the method of calculating the compensation are separate questions. The demolition order, the permit file and any earlier final court decisions should be submitted for evaluation without being withheld. The court makes the legal characterization; the expert's task is to set out the technical characteristics and the appropriate calculation data.
What errors are examined in the valuation of buildings and facilities?
The floor area, class, intended use, load-bearing system, level of completion and state of wear of the structure must be determined correctly. The period to which the unit cost relates is explained. An unfinished structure cannot be valued as a completed building, nor can a building in usable condition be valued as rubble without justification.
Storage buildings, irrigation facilities, retaining walls and connected structures other than the main building are identified one by one during the on-site examination. At the same time, the same item must not be calculated both in the cost of the main structure and under a separate facility item. The owner's objection to the report should be supported by plans or photographs showing the omitted item and the incorrect measurement.
How are greenhouses and production facilities assessed?
The fixed load-bearing elements, covering, irrigation system and movable production equipment of a greenhouse may be examined separately. Giving a single name to the entire facility does not mean that every part has the same legal nature. Whether it can be dismantled and reused, its permanence and its physical connection to the property must be determined technically.
The business's loss of turnover and the value of the physical facility are also different. It should not be assumed that all commercial losses will be added automatically to the expropriation valuation file. The statutory basis of the claim, the cause of the loss and the appropriate legal route are assessed separately. If there is a lease relationship, the dismantling and expense provisions in the contract also matter.
How is the compensation for trees and the orchard calculated?
The species, number, age, yield period and maintenance condition of the trees and the orchard character of the property are investigated. Instead of estimating the number of trees during the on-site examination, measurement and an inventory must be prepared. Claims about age and yield are assessed, where necessary, with the help of an agricultural expert.
A dense orchard and individual trees in a field may not be valued by the same method. If the income value of the property has been determined on the basis of the trees' production capacity, a calculation that prices the same income a second time should not be made. Conversely, an independent item that was not taken into account in the land calculation cannot be left out without justification.
What can be done if the trees have been cut down?
Photographs from before the cutting, aerial images, agricultural support and crop records, cutting records and the existing stump traces are examined together. A one-sided list prepared afterwards is not, by itself, conclusive proof of the age and number of the trees. If there is a risk that the evidence will be lost, a properly conducted preservation of evidence (delil tespiti) may be considered.
In the same file, the standing crop, multi-year trees and land income must not be mixed up. The loss of a harvest and the end of a tree's economic life may differ. It should be kept clear for which period and which loss the compensation is requested.
If there is a Treasury or forest record, are all claims rejected?
The impossibility of acquiring land ownership through possession and a separate compensation claim for improvements are different matters to be examined. It may not be possible to claim the land compensation for a property that is public property on the ground of long use; on the other hand, the special provision applicable to improvements must be discussed separately.
The decision of the Court of Cassation 5th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi) of March 4, 2024, E.2024/547, K.2024/2557 makes this distinction concrete. In a claim concerning pistachio trees on a place registered in the name of the Treasury with forest status, the Chamber examined the age of the trees and the registration date of the property; it did not find it correct that the claim was rejected without evaluating the last paragraph of Article 19, and reversed the judgment of the regional court of appeal. The reasoning of the decision also points to the need to evaluate the provision on places registered in the name of another person with regard to the possibility of later planting. Full text of the decision.
This reversal is not a general permission for unconditional payment for every structure or every tree in a forest area. It does not confer land ownership; it does not remove the other legal consequences of unauthorized use. The specific interference, the date the item was created, the special legislation and the compensation requested must be examined separately. The reasoning in the decision must be used without exceeding its scope.
Why is the date decisive for new structures and plantings?
Article 25 imposes a restriction on new construction, planting or substantial alterations to an existing structure after the registration decision; the value of what is done afterwards is not taken into account. In addition, for large projects spread over future years, there is a special regulation for fixed facilities and trees after the statutory announcement of the public-interest decision. Under this regime, the announcement, the end date and the five-year restriction must be investigated separately.
For this reason, the compensation calculation is not limited to the physical condition seen on the day of the on-site examination. When the item was created and which restriction period it falls into are determined. Old photographs and project records help to separate existing improvements from items added later. The same starting date should not be applied to every file that does not fall within the scope of the special rule on the announcement of the public-interest decision.
By which action and documents is an ownership dispute resolved?
If it is disputed who created the improvements, an action for declaratory judgment (tespit davası) may come into question, taking into account whether a current legal interest exists because of the pending expropriation. However, it is not appropriate to bring a separate declaratory action in every case where a result can be obtained with a direct claim action. Jurisdiction, parties and the claim are determined according to whether the dispute rests on a personal right, a lease or another relationship.
A dispute over the independent determination of improvements is, as a rule, heard by the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi). If the allegation is an expense claim based on a contract between a tenant and a landlord, different rules may apply on jurisdiction and on mediation as a condition precedent to litigation (dava şartı arabuluculuk). It is not correct to direct all claims to the same court under the name of "expropriation."
Why must the time limits given by the court be monitored separately?
Asserting the improvements claim in the main file is not the same as complying with an interim decision requiring another action to be filed within a period. It must be read whether the period given is final, what the notice contains, and which step it requires. For claims based on pre-cadastral grounds, special preclusive periods (hak düşürücü süre) are also examined separately. A general and unlimited statement that "there is no time limit for an improvements action" should not be relied on.
If it is disputed to whom the compensation will be paid, an explicit request on payment and on freezing the amount must be made in the relevant file. Filing an ownership action does not mean that the amount in the bank is automatically protected. The interim legal protection that can be applied, the scope of the measure requested and its connection with the main action must be made concrete.
| Evidence | What it clarifies |
|---|---|
| Historical land registry and cadastral records | The right to the land and existing statements |
| Building permit, project and old photographs | Date of construction and physical scope |
| Invoices, contracts and bank records | In whose name and for whose account it was built |
| Tree inventory and agricultural records | Species, age, number and yield |
| Expropriation map and on-site examination report | Which item is affected |
| Lease or use agreement | Expense, dismantling and personal right relationship |
Conclusion
An effective review of compensation for improvements begins with defining the item, identifying the right holder and choosing the correct valuation provision. The compensation for the land, the minimum-necessities value for a building, the ordinary value of a structure, the compensation for trees and expense claims arising from a contract must be assessed separately. A technical objection prepared while preserving the scope of real decisions, and evidence submitted on time, help reduce the risk of payment to the wrong person and of an incomplete amount.
Related articles: Determining Ownership of Improvements; Expropriation of Unregistered Property and the Possessor; Determination of Expropriation Compensation and the Registration Action; Easement Expropriation: Energy and Pipelines
Frequently Asked Questions
If the title deed is not in my name, can I claim compensation for the building I built?
Depending on the specific circumstances, yes; however, the minimum-necessities value regime in the last paragraph of Article 19 may come into play. It is not the same right as the compensation for the land.
Is it enough that the electricity subscription is in my name?
It is not enough on its own. In whose name and for whose account the person created the structure is investigated through other evidence.
Is an additional payment for trees always made on top of the land compensation?
It depends on the valuation method. The same production value must not be calculated twice; an item that does not appear in the land calculation must also be examined.
Can an action to determine improvements be brought for goods that can be dismantled?
Not every item is suitable for this action. By examining detachability and legal interest, the appropriate claim is chosen.
If there is a forest record, does the claim for compensation for trees definitely end?
The right to the land and the compensation for trees are not the same. As the 2024 decision also shows, the special compensation provision and the particulars of the case must be evaluated separately.
Sources
- Expropriation Law No. 2942: Articles 11, 19, 20 and 25.
- Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code: provisions on integral parts, structures and plants.
- Court of Cassation 8th Civil Chamber, E.2017/15373, K.2017/16681, December 12, 2017: full text of the decision.
- Court of Cassation 5th Civil Chamber, E.2024/547, K.2024/2557, March 4, 2024: reasoning and reversal.
Date legislation and sources were checked: October 15, 2026.