The designation of a property that is privately owned in the land registry as a road, park or school area in the zoning plan does not transfer ownership to the administration automatically. The plan decision can, however, severely limit the owner’s building and use options. If the restriction is not lifted for a long time, the routes of expropriation, plan amendment and compensation come into play. The correct application is determined by the actual condition of the property, the type of plan, the duration of the restriction and the nature of the claim.
As of 2026, there is a change on this subject that calls for particular attention: the statutory sentence providing that actions concerning the value in cases of legal taking are heard in the ordinary (civil) courts was annulled by the Constitutional Court. However, jurisdiction decisions were also issued in 2026 concerning actions filed on earlier dates. The date of the decision must not be confused with the date on which the action was filed.
This article is based on the legislation and decisions accessible as of October 13, 2026. The review concerns privately owned properties that are left in a public service area; not all restrictions arising from legislation on protected sites, coastlines, forests or disasters are subject to the same legal regime.
What does it mean for a property to remain in a public service area?
The designation of a parcel in the zoning plan as a road, park, green space or educational facility area determines the purpose for which that property will be used in the future. A plan decision, however, is different from an expropriation act. The finalization of the plan alone does not mean that the price has been paid or that the title has been transferred.
In the initial review, the current title deed record, the zoning status certificate, the plan sheet and the plan notes must be read together. It should be determined whether the “school area” wording refers to a public educational facility or a private educational facility, and whether the whole parcel or only a part of it is allocated to public use. A use suitable for establishing a private facility and a public allocation that substantially prevents the owner’s disposition cannot be assessed in the same way.
Why are the master zoning plan and the implementing zoning plan distinguished?
Additional Article 1 of the Expropriation Law No. 2942 is based on the legal restriction that arises from the implementing zoning plan and affects the essence of the right of ownership. For this reason, it cannot be said that the same value action can be filed in every case merely on the basis of a land use decision seen in a higher-scale master plan. The lower-scale plan, the building conditions and the actual possibility of use must be examined separately. [1, add. Art. 1]
The fact that only a part of the parcel falls within a public area also changes the calculation. The area of the restricted part, the access to the remaining part and whether it can be used independently must be determined technically. Claiming the value of the entire parcel does not become justified automatically because a partial restriction exists.
What is the difference between legal taking and de facto taking?
Legal taking arises where the administration severely restricts the right of ownership through the plan and a long period of non-implementation, without physically using the property. De facto taking, by contrast, is a physical interference with privately owned property without a proper expropriation. Opening a road, building a park or constructing a school building may be examples of this second group.
| Condition of the property | Basic issue to be examined | Effect on the application |
|---|---|---|
| Park in the plan; no public use on the land | Scope and duration of the restriction arising from the plan | Legal taking and administrative application routes are assessed. |
| Title with the owner; land actually used as a road | De facto interference, area and date of interference | Claims for de facto taking without expropriation come into play. |
| Area that passed to the public as a DOP through a valid parcelation | Lawfulness of the deduction and the registration | The parcelation act and the ownership status are examined first. |
| Public project has damaged the neighboring property | Is it an interference with ownership, or damage arising from the performance of a service? | Not every damage is accepted as de facto taking. |
This distinction is not merely conceptual; it affects the competent court, the applicable procedure and the subject of proof. Old aerial photographs, municipal construction records and findings of an on-site inspection can show when the plan decision turned into a physical interference.
Section III of the decision of the Unification of Case Law Board of the Court of Cassation dated February 11, 1959, E.1958/17, K.1959/15 explains the aspect of taking without expropriation as an interference with ownership and a tort. This section is also cited in decision no. 2026/141 of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi). The historical distinction is important for understanding disputes about de facto interference; it does not by itself resolve the jurisdiction problem of all legal taking actions in 2026. [5, §14]
What rights arise when five years have passed?
The basic provision in additional Article 1 of Law No. 2942 provides that, within five years from the entry into force of the implementing zoning plan, a zoning program or implementation must be carried out, and that the property must be expropriated or the restriction preventing the exercise of the right of ownership must be removed by a plan amendment. [1, add. Art. 1]
This period does not mean that the owner can do nothing for five years. If the plan decision is considered unlawful, the application and action periods against the plan must be used separately. The five-year period concerning the administration’s duty of implementation is not the general limitation period for annulling the plan.
The expiry of the period likewise does not cause the title deed to pass to the public automatically or a specific amount to be paid automatically. The scope of the plan, the extent to which ownership is restricted, which acts the administration has carried out and whether the restriction continues must be established.
The special provision in Article 13 of the Zoning Law must also not be overlooked: for transferring to public ownership the areas on which construction is not permitted, the Article provides a five-year zoning program period and an extension of at most one year. The application of this provision to the specific parcel must be examined separately; an automatic six-year waiting period cannot be derived for all legal taking disputes. [2, Art. 13]
Does the period start again if the plan is renewed?
Where a property is left in the same public service use in successive plans, looking only at the date of the latest plan may be misleading. The periods of validity of the earlier plans, the intervening amendments and whether the restriction has continued without interruption must be investigated. It cannot be assumed that each revision erases the past restriction and gives the administration another five years.
In decision of the Sixth Chamber of the Council of State dated September 29, 2021, E.2021/3118, K.2021/10330, properties designated as a neighborhood market in the 2005 implementing plan, and keeping the same function in later plans, were examined. The Chamber noted that the restriction had not been removed although five years had passed, reversed the dismissal decision and required that the responsible administrations be identified and the loss be determined according to objective criteria. This reasoning appears in decision no. 2026/161 of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes. The decision did not directly award a specific compensation. [6, §3]
What did the 2025 Constitutional Court decision change in 2026?
The annulled provision and the date of entry into force
The Constitutional Court’s decision of January 16, 2025, E.2024/135, K.2025/20 annulled the third sentence added to additional Article 1 of Law No. 2942 by Law No. 7421. That sentence provided that, where the prescribed acts were not carried out, the owners’ actions concerning the value arising from the right of ownership would be heard in the ordinary courts. [4]
The decision was published in Official Gazette No. 32886 of April 30, 2025; because of the nine-month postponement, the annulment took effect on January 30, 2026. This date must not be confused with January 16, 2025, the date on which the decision was rendered.
The Court’s reasoning is not limited to which court will have jurisdiction. It criticized reversing the expropriation process so that the burden of bringing an action falls on the owner, and allowing the administration to acquire property outside the constitutional guarantees of expropriation. The rule was found contrary to Articles 13, 35 and 46 of the Constitution. The decision does not eliminate the owner’s right of ownership or every possibility of compensation. [4; 5, §13]
Why should the 2026 jurisdiction decisions be read carefully?
In its decision of March 9, 2026, E.2026/22, K.2026/141, the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes held that the ordinary courts have jurisdiction. The decision, however, states expressly that the action was filed on June 26, 2025 and that the special jurisdiction provision was in force on that date. The Court also assessed the Constitutional Court’s reasoning for annulment and concluded that the judicial path did not change in that file. [5, §§19–22]
The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes’ decision of April 13, 2026, E.2026/153, K.2026/161 also held the ordinary courts competent regarding properties falling within a neighborhood market area. The file involves proceedings extending back to earlier years and a later application to the ordinary courts. This decision is not a decision on the merits establishing that loss of income or ecrimisil (compensation for unjust occupation) will necessarily be paid. [6]
These decisions must not be presented with the claim that every action filed for the first time after January 30, 2026 will be resolved in the same way. The date of the action, whether the claim concerns value or loss of use, and the legal or de facto nature of the interference must be assessed together.
Which action can be filed in which court?
The lawfulness of the zoning plan, or of the refusal of a plan amendment request, is reviewed in the administrative courts. The general route for compensating damage arising from administrative acts and actions is likewise a full remedy action under Articles 2, 12 and 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK). For ownership and value claims based on de facto taking without expropriation, however, the civil courts of first instance in the ordinary courts come into play. [3; 5]
When preparing a new legal taking action after January 30, 2026, the annulled special jurisdiction sentence must no longer be used as if it were in force. For damage arising solely from the plan and administrative non-implementation, the starting point is the general jurisdiction framework of the administrative courts. However, in claims aimed at the value of the entire property and the transfer of the title deed, the scope of the above case law on jurisdiction must be discussed separately. The explanation here is based on assessing the general provisions together with the decisions examined; it does not claim that there is final case law covering all new actions filed after the annulment.
If the owner’s real aim is to make construction possible, the annulment of the plan or of the refusal may become important. If the aim is to remedy the loss for the restricted period, the compensation claim must be framed accordingly. Taking the value of the property and ending the ownership relationship produces a different result. Although these claims are related, they are not the same; a double payment cannot be requested for the same loss.
In the administrative courts, the court cannot take the place of the administration and draw a specific plan or perform an administrative act. Annulment of the refusal requires a new administrative assessment in line with the reasoning of the judgment. The petition must not be built on asking the court to perform directly an act outside its authority. [3, Art. 2]
How do you apply for expropriation or for the lifting of the restriction?
How is the administration to be applied to determined?
The administration that prepared or approved the plan and the administration responsible for performing the public service are not always the same. For a school area, the duties of the administration responsible for educational services must be investigated; for a road, those of the relevant municipality or other public administration, depending on the nature of the road. The distribution of authority between metropolitan and district municipalities is also important.
For this reason, a “lawsuit against the municipality” approach alone is not correct in every file. The plan approval decisions, the investment program, the owner of the service and any opinions of institutions must be examined together. Articles 10 and 13 of the Zoning Law are the basic provisions for understanding implementation and the routes for transfer to public ownership. [2]
What should the application petition contain?
The application must clearly state the owner and share information, the block-parcel number, the area allocated to public use, and the dates of the first and subsequent plans. The effect of the restriction on daily use, building permit applications or economic benefit should be made concrete. The title deed, plan copies, zoning status and previous correspondence should be attached.
The request should not be left as the sentence “pay the value of my plot.” It may be requested that the situation in the zoning program be explained, that the opinions of the relevant institutions be provided, that the acts being carried out for transfer to public ownership be notified, and that the restriction be removed lawfully. It must be clear which solution is requested and what the alternative requests, if any, are.
The record of delivery or electronic submission of the application should be kept. Oral discussions do not form a record as reliable as a written application, either for calculating periods or for showing the administration’s position. In addition, a request for information and a legal application before litigation should not be confused.
Can transfer of zoning rights or exchange be a solution?
Article 13 of Law No. 3194, with the 2024 amendments, regulates ways such as land and plot arrangement, the use of certain public properties, the transfer of zoning rights, and exchange or purchase for transfer to the public. In the transfer of zoning rights, the values of the receiving and the transferring parcels and the statutory conditions are important. [2, Art. 13]
This provision does not give the owner an unlimited right to choose any other plot desired. A solution offered by the administration is not judged by area equality alone; value, location, use and legal encumbrances are examined. Before a document containing a transfer without consideration or a waiver is signed, it should be clarified which gain it is a condition of and what effect it has on the remaining claims.
How are application and action periods assessed?
In the administrative courts, unless there is a special provision, the general period for filing an action is sixty days. The starting date, however, may vary according to facts such as notification, announcement, learning, express refusal or implied refusal (zımni ret). A single starting date cannot be accepted for the whole of a zoning dispute. [3, Arts. 7–8]
If an application for an act or action under Article 10 of the İYUK remains unanswered for thirty days, implied refusal comes into play. For an indefinite reply and a late reply, the special rules in the Article are considered separately. An application made in time against an existing act under Article 11 suspends the action period; after the refusal or thirty days without reply, the remaining period runs, taking into account the period that has already elapsed. It cannot be said that every application starts a new sixty-day period.
For claims characterized as damage arising from an administrative action, the prior application and the one-year/five-year periods in Article 13 are assessed separately. It is problematic both to apply these periods mechanically without explaining the legal nature of the continuing plan restriction and to treat all claims as unlimited in time.
If an action filed in the ordinary courts is dismissed on the ground that the administrative courts have jurisdiction, the possibility of applying within thirty days following the finalization of the decision of lack of jurisdiction, under Article 9 of the İYUK, may come into play. Its conditions must be examined separately. Filing an action in the wrong court is not an error that is fatal as regards time limits in every case.
Which documents and expert examinations are important?
The title deed record shows ownership; the cadastral survey drawing shows the boundaries; the plan sheet and notes show the land use decision; and the approval and posting documents show the plan history. To these should be added the municipal zoning program, letters from the investing institution, the expropriation file, permit applications and refusal replies. Current photographs of the property and past aerial images can explain the existence and date of the de facto interference.
In the on-site inspection and expert examination, the basic questions must be clear: How many square meters is the area allocated to public service? Can the remaining part be used? When did the actual use begin? What were the possibilities of use before and after the restriction? Has the plan amendment or parcelation truly removed the restriction?
In files requiring valuation, expertise such as urban planner, survey engineer and real estate appraiser may become important depending on the nature of the dispute. Instead of a general request that “an expert examination be conducted,” the technical disputes that are to be clarified should be indicated.
Are the value of the property, loss of use and ecrimisil the same thing?
A claim directed at the ownership value of the property and the loss arising from being unable to benefit during a certain period are different. Demanding the entire value of the plot, demanding past rental loss and demanding ecrimisil for de facto unlawful use may not have the same legal basis.
For example, ecrimisil cannot be calculated on the assumption that “the municipality has been using it for years” for a plot that falls in a school area only on the plan and is not actually used by the administration. Where there is actual use, on the other hand, the area, duration and responsible administration of the interference must be determined. The name given to a claim does not remove the court’s duty to examine the facts and the legal basis.
The method to be applied in determining the value is linked to whether the property is plot or land and to the legal basis of the claim. Article 11 of the Expropriation Law contains the basic principles regarding comparable sales, net income and other objective criteria. However, an automatic valuation and registration formula cannot be built as if the annulled paragraphs of additional Article 1 were in force. [1, Art. 11 and add. Art. 1]
It is also incorrect to treat as compensation all the sales revenue alleged to be obtainable from a hypothetical project for which no permits yet exist. The realizability of the revenue, its costs and the causal link between the restriction and the damage must be shown. The Council of State’s 2021 decision mentioned above specifically required that the responsible administrations and objective criteria based on the property’s own characteristics be determined. [6, §3]
Do DOP, co-owned title deeds and a later purchase change the result?
An area that was lawfully set aside during parcelation within the development contribution share (DOP) and has passed into public ownership is not the same as a public service area that still remains in the owner’s title deed. The old and new title deed records, the distribution schedules and the basis of the deduction must be examined first. For an area that is the subject of a valid deduction, the value of the property cannot be claimed again merely on the ground of having been the former owner; the unlawfulness of the deduction is a separate dispute.
In co-owned parcels created under older practice within the public contribution share (KOP), in particular, it must be investigated who retained ownership. A “KOP” or “public area” entry does not by itself show that all rights have ended. In co-ownership, the relationship of the claimed amount to the share, and in acquisition by inheritance, the succession and standing to sue must be explained.
Purchasing with knowledge of the restriction likewise does not mean a prior waiver of all rights. However, the date on which ownership was acquired, the period of loss claimed, and whether the previous owner’s personal claims were assigned are important. The new owner cannot automatically claim in his or her own name the damage of every past period.
How should real court decisions be used in practice?
The Constitutional Court’s Hüseyin Ünal, Application No. 2017/24715, September 20, 2018 decision is one of the basic examples for a violation of the right of ownership where a property designated for public service in the zoning plan is not expropriated for a long time and no compensation is paid. The Constitutional Court’s official explanation of leading decisions emphasizes that being unable to benefit freely from the property during the restriction places an excessive burden on the owner. [7]
This decision does not require every park or school area to be converted immediately into a residential area. It shows the balance between the public interest and the burden placed on the owner. In a specific file, the duration of the restriction, its effect and the means of redress must be set out separately.
The Council of State’s decision no. 2021/10330 should be used for its reasoning of reversal concerning the examination of damage; the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes’ decisions nos. 2026/141 and 2026/161 should be used for their results concerning the jurisdiction dispute. The Constitutional Court’s norm review decision no. 2025/20 likewise does not determine the value of an individual property. Stating which legal question each decision resolves is more useful than merely listing docket and decision numbers.
How are payment and enforcement of the decision monitored at the end of the action?
The enforcement of an annulment or full remedy judgment and the collection of a value awarded in the ordinary courts are subject to separate procedures. Judgments within the scope of Article 28 of the İYUK must be complied with by the administration without delay; this period must not exceed thirty days from notification of the judgment to the administration. An annulment decision should not be interpreted as the property automatically turning into another land use area. [3, Art. 28]
For the value, compensation and related expenses awarded under Law No. 2942, additional Article 4 provides for payment within thirty days to the bank account notified in writing to the administration by the claimant or the attorney; if payment is not made, enforcement proceedings are available under the general provisions. To which judgment this provision applies is determined by the legal basis of the file. [1, add. Art. 4]
The Constitutional Court’s decision of May 13, 2026, E.2026/24, K.2026/106 annulled the security exemption in the second paragraph of additional Article 4 with respect to compensation actions filed because of taking without expropriation. The decision was published in Official Gazette No. 33333 of August 7, 2026. For this reason, the statement that the administration may in all cases rely on this special provision to request a stay of enforcement without security is no longer current. The decision did not abolish the institution of stay of enforcement altogether. [8]
The type, starting point and period of interest must also be determined according to the nature of the claim and of the judgment. It should not be assumed that a single rate will apply to all expropriation, legal taking and loss-of-use claims. At the collection stage, the operative part of the judgment, notification, the account statement, payment and appeal records should be monitored together.
Conclusion
For properties that fall in a road, park or school area in the zoning plan, the first question is not merely “How many years have I been waiting?” The condition of the title deed, the history of the implementing plan, whether there has been a de facto interference, the responsible administration and the legal outcome the owner wants must be determined together.
As of 2026, it would not be correct to direct all legal taking actions to a single branch of the judiciary without taking the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision into account. An application supported by documents should separate the lifting of the restriction, the review of the plan and the damage claim from one another, and should be framed according to the date of the action and the current case law on jurisdiction. This review at the start of the file reduces the delays that may arise from a wrong claim and a mistake about time limits.
Frequently Asked Questions
My plot has fallen in a park area. Does the municipality have to pay the value immediately?
The plan decision alone does not bring about immediate payment. The date of the implementing plan, the scope of the restriction, the five-year implementation duty and the acts carried out by the administration must be examined. If there is de facto taking, the assessment changes.
Can I not file any action before five years have passed?
No. An annulment action against the unlawfulness of the plan is different from a damage claim arising from a long-lasting restriction. The action periods against the plan should be assessed without waiting.
Is a legal taking action definitely filed in the civil court of first instance in 2026?
This generalization is not correct. The special jurisdiction sentence ceased to be in force on January 30, 2026. Jurisdiction decisions on actions filed on earlier dates must not be applied to new actions without examining the date of the action and the claim.
If a road has been built on my property, is there still legal taking?
If a road has been built without a proper expropriation while the title deed was privately owned, de facto taking may come into play. The boundaries of the road, the date of interference and the responsible administration must be determined with technical documents.
Can the municipality keep me waiting indefinitely by saying it has no budget?
Insufficient budget alone does not justify the indefinite continuation of a severe restriction on the right of ownership. In the Constitutional Court’s case law, the balance between the burden placed on the owner and the public interest is taken into account.
Can I definitely demand expropriation of my plot in a school area?
You may request the lifting of the restriction and, if the legal conditions exist, assert a claim for value or damage. However, expropriation is not the only solution; plan amendment, zoning implementation or other routes with statutory conditions may also be considered.
If I cannot use the property, can I definitely receive ecrimisil?
No. A mere plan restriction and the administration’s actual unlawful use are not the same. Ecrimisil, loss of use and the value of the property are assessed on separate legal bases.
If I win the case, does the whole property automatically pass to the public?
Not every decision produces such a result. An annulment decision, compensation for loss of use, and a judgment producing registration together with the value must be distinguished from one another. The effect on the title deed depends on the scope of the judgment.
Sources
1. Expropriation Law No. 2942: In particular Art. 11, additional Art. 1 and additional Art. 4. Current consolidated text. The annulment markings in the consolidated text have also been taken into account.
2. Zoning Law No. 3194: In particular Arts. 10, 13 and 18. Consolidated text.
3. Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK): In particular Arts. 2, 7–13 and 28. Consolidated text.
4. Constitutional Court, 16.01.2025, E.2024/135, K.2025/20: Official Gazette 30.04.2025/32886. Official decision record. The reasoning and operative part of the annulment were also examined through the account given in the official Court of Jurisdictional Disputes decision no. 2026/141 below.
5. Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, 09.03.2026, E.2026/22, K.2026/141: Official full text PDF. §13 Constitutional Court 2025/20; §14 Court of Cassation Unification of Case Law Board 11.02.1959, E.1958/17, K.1959/15; §§19–22 assessment of jurisdiction.
6. Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, 13.04.2026, E.2026/153, K.2026/161: Official full text PDF. §3 sets out the relevant reasoning and the reversal outcome of the decision of the Council of State 6th Chamber, 29.09.2021, E.2021/3118, K.2021/10330.
7. Constitutional Court, Hüseyin Ünal, Application No. 2017/24715, 20.09.2018: Official decision record; Constitutional Court explanations of leading decisions on the right of ownership. The short assessment in the article is based on the official explanation of the leading decision.
8. Constitutional Court, 13.05.2026, E.2026/24, K.2026/106: Official Gazette 07.08.2026/33333. Official Gazette decision PDF.