An annulment action against an expropriation (kamulaştırma işleminin iptali davası) examines in the administrative courts whether taking a property by public authority is lawful. A low compensation amount and an unlawful expropriation are different problems. If the protection of ownership is sought, the correct administrative act must be challenged within the time limit; the action must be linked to the compensation and registration file; and, where necessary, a stay of execution must be requested separately.
The administration's statement that "there is a public interest" does not remove judicial review. However, the owner's refusal to give up the property is not, on its own, a ground for annulment. The review rests on concrete documents and concerns competence, form, cause, subject matter, purpose and proportionality. The legal research for this article is dated October 14, 2026.
An Annulment Action and a Compensation Action Do Not Produce the Same Result
The Expropriation Law No. 2942 (Kamulaştırma Kanunu) provides, in Article 14, for annulment in the administrative courts and, for material errors, a route of correction in the civil courts. The compensation and title registration action that the administration brings under Article 10 concerns the value of the property and the transfer of ownership. A statement filed with the civil court of first instance that "I do not accept the expropriation" does not mean that an action has been filed with the competent administrative court. [1]
| Owner's objection | Main route | Subject of review |
|---|---|---|
| The taking of the property is unlawful | Administrative annulment action | Public interest, competence, necessity, proportionality |
| The proposed value is low | Defense in the compensation and registration file | Comparable sales, income, structures, remaining part, interest |
| There is a material error in the document | Correction suited to the nature of the error | Scope of the person, registry or calculation error |
| Urgent taking without a reason | Administrative action against the urgency decision | Why the ordinary procedure could not be awaited |
An owner may object both to the expropriation and to the compensation. Submitting valuation documents does not necessarily show that the owner has accepted the administrative act. However, the legal effect of statements involving a settlement, compromise, sale or waiver must be examined separately.
Determining the Challenged Act and the Correct Defendant
The act file must be read as a whole
The public interest decision, the approval, the expropriation decision, the list of properties, the project, the zoning plan and the urgency decision are not the same document. It must be determined which one is final and mandatory to implement, which one remains at the preparatory stage, and which outcome the request for annulment aims at. Adding only the covering letter of the expropriation notice is often not enough. For the expropriation of easements, the act file is discussed separately in the article Energy Transmission Line and Pipeline Expropriation.
The petition must state clearly the act with its date and number, the block and parcel of the property, the affected share and the scope of the annulment sought. If only specific parcels from a whole project are challenged, the request must be framed accordingly. If the zoning plan on which the expropriation rests is also to be challenged, the time limit for the plan and its relation to the implementing act must be examined separately; bringing an expropriation action does not by itself make the plan the subject of the action.
The claim is directed at the administration that made the act
Even if the claimant sees only the contractor company working on site, the defendant in the annulment action is the administrative authority that made the act. A presidential decision and the implementing act of the local administration must be distinguished from each other. Article 10 of the Expropriation Law contains a protective rule under which, where the invitation names the wrong or an incomplete administration, service continues with the real opposing party in an action brought against the wrong party. Article 15 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) is also important for the examination of proper defendant status (husumet). These possibilities do not justify leaving the challenged act unclear. [1,2]
Who May Sue and Which Court Has Jurisdiction?
The owner is the person directly affected by the expropriation. The right of co-owners in shares or in joint ownership to bring an action alone is regulated in Article 14. Inheritance, representation and share records must be documented. The scope of the interest of a person who is not an owner is examined separately; living nearby or disliking the project does not by itself create an unlimited right to sue against every act.
As a rule, a dispute concerning immovable property is heard by the administrative court where the property is located. For presidential decisions, the jurisdiction rule in Article 24 of the Council of State Law No. 2575 (Danıştay Kanunu) is important at first instance. The location of the civil court of first instance to which the administration applied does not alone determine the competent administrative court for the administrative action. [2,3]
Where a single petition is to be used for several properties or several owners, the conditions for connection and for a common right or interest under Article 5 of the İYUK must be checked. Being in the same project alone does not mean that each application can be combined in a single file. A petition prepared in accordance with the procedure reduces the losses that may arise from preliminary review in a dispute with a short time limit.
How Is the Filing Period Calculated?
The special thirty-day period in ordinary expropriation
Under Article 14 of Law No. 2942, the special filing period of thirty days runs from service made by the court under Article 10 or, for persons who could not be served, from the court announcement that replaces service in the proper manner. The general period of sixty days in administrative actions does not remove this special period. [1]
The service receipt (mazbata), electronic notification records, the addressee and the method of delivery must be reviewed when calculating the period. The date of upload to UETS (National Electronic Notification System) may differ from the date on which service is legally deemed made. The rules on commencement and on public holidays in Article 8 of the İYUK apply to the concrete calendar. If an incorrect period is written in the invitation or the route of challenge is not indicated, this is assessed separately; it cannot be assumed that this grants an unlimited additional period in every file.
A petition to the administration does not always stop the period
Under the ordinary procedure, an application for revocation, withdrawal or amendment made within the time limit and to the competent authority under Article 11 of the İYUK may stop the filing period. What determines the matter is the content of the application and its relation to special legislation, not its name. After a refusal, or after the statutory period of non-response, how the remaining period runs is calculated separately; an application does not in every case create a new full filing period.
Article 11 does not apply to the expedited proceedings for urgent expropriation. Therefore, advice on petitions for ordinary actions must not be carried over to an urgency decision. The owner's learning of the act without service, the Official Gazette publication and a later Article 10 invitation must be recorded as separate dates. A sixty-day period mentioned in an old decision cannot be generalized to all current urgent expropriations. [2]
Which Unlawful Acts May Be Grounds for Annulment?
Lack of competence and procedural defects
The competence of the body that made the decision, whether the necessary approval exists, and whether the property can be identified from the annex to the decision are examined. Where an expropriation is for a private person, a specific legal basis is required. However, the fact that a private person will gain economic benefit from the project does not by itself turn the act into an expropriation on that person's behalf; the act and the structure of the project must be read concretely.
Procedural defects in the purchase process may also be raised. But it should not be assumed that every procedural problem falls within the same judicial branch and carries the same sanction. It must be distinguished whether a defect concerns the expropriation decision, the administration's conditions for bringing a civil action, or service.
Public interest must rest on a concrete need for a service
Public interest (kamu yararı) is not merely the wording in the title of the decision. It must be possible to explain which public service the project will provide, why the property is necessary for that service, and the link between the purpose and the area to be acquired. The fact that the administration has a general field of duties does not mean that it may acquire every parcel without limit. For the review of a decision on a public service area in a plan, see the article Objection to and Annulment Action Against an Amendment of the Zoning Plan.
Under Article 6 of the Expropriation Law, where services are carried out under an approved zoning plan, or under a special plan and project approved by the relevant ministry, a separate public interest decision may not be required or approved. This exception does not mean that public interest is never reviewed. An owner cannot succeed merely because there is no separate public interest decision; the plan or project relied on by the administration and the decision of the competent body are examined. [1]
Taking more land than necessary and a less intrusive measure
Would an easement suffice instead of full ownership? Can the project be carried out with a narrower corridor? Is an alternative route technically possible? These questions matter in the proportionality review. It is not enough that an alternative is drawn only on a sketch: its feasibility must be shown in terms of cost, slope, safety, infrastructure, environment and the functioning of the service.
The court does not take the administration's place in designing a new project. However, it reviews whether there is an objective basis for the administration's choice and whether the burden placed on the property is necessary. The integrity of the project and the continuity of the public service, which are the administration's strong defenses, must be discussed through concrete technical objections.
How Is a Request for a Stay of Execution Justified?
Under Article 27 of the İYUK, the conditions that the act is manifestly unlawful and that its implementation would cause damage difficult or impossible to remedy must be sought together. Filing an action does not, as a rule, automatically stop the execution of the act. Unlawfulness and damage must be explained separately. [2]
If it is claimed that trees are being uprooted, a building is being demolished, the geometry of a parcel is changing irreversibly, or the integrity of an enterprise is being damaged, these must be shown with dated photographs, official notices, the project and a technical report. The statement "my property right is being violated" does not replace an explanation of which act will cause which immediate harm.
For an objection to a stay-of-execution decision under the ordinary procedure, the seven-day period in Article 27 and the competent body are assessed. In urgent proceedings, however, special rules apply, such as the fact that stay-of-execution decisions cannot be challenged. This distinction must be reflected in the petition and in the timetable.
How the Administrative Action Affects the Compensation and Registration File
The former stay-of-execution requirement can no longer be carried over as it stood
By its decision E.2024/101, K.2024/232 of December 25, 2024, the Constitutional Court annulled the provision that made a stay of the civil proceedings pending the administrative action (bekletici mesele) under Article 10/14 dependent on a stay of execution. By its decision E.2025/148, K.2025/141 of July 10, 2025, it annulled the phrase in Article 10/3-f requiring proof that a decision to stay execution had been taken. The second decision was published on December 1, 2025. [4,5] For a taking without any administrative act, see the article De Facto Expropriation Action.
In light of these decisions, the categorical statement that "if there is no stay of execution, registration takes place regardless of the outcome of the administrative action" is not accurate. The owner must promptly document in the civil court the administrative action filed within the time limit, and must request a stay of the proceedings as a preliminary question (bekletici mesele) under Article 165 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK), explaining the decisive role of the annulment review for the transfer of ownership. The court should be asked to assess the connection between the two files and the current constitutional reasoning.
A stay of the proceedings differs from a stay of the act's implementation
A stay of the civil court's proceedings does not produce all the effects of a stay-of-execution decision on the administrative act in the field. In particular, where there is an urgency decision, the transfer of ownership, possession and construction activities may be at different stages. Both files must expressly request the protection needed.
The Constitutional Court's annulment decision E.2025/190, K.2026/38 on the finality of registration will enter into force on February 21, 2027. This future change cannot be a reason today not to file the administrative action or to postpone the request for a stay of the proceedings as a preliminary question. [6]
An Accessible Decision: Public Interest and Urgency Are Not the Same
In the decision of the Administrative Litigation Chambers Board of the Council of State (İDDK) dated March 31, 2022, E.2022/803, K.2022/1130, a small industrial site project was examined. The Board accepted the municipality's power of expropriation; nevertheless, it upheld the annulment result on the ground that urgency had not been concretely demonstrated. [7]
The practical value of the decision is that it separates different questions of review. That the administration is competent and has a public service purpose does not show that the conditions for urgent expropriation are also met. Moreover, the reasoning of the Board and that of the first-instance chamber are not entirely the same; it cannot be said that the municipality was found to lack competence merely from the operative sentence. Where annulment of an ordinary expropriation is sought, the urgency analysis in this decision must not be generalized to the whole act.
What Follows an Annulment Decision?
Under Article 28 of the İYUK, the administration must comply with the decision without delay and within legal limits. However, the route to follow where the property has not yet been transferred differs from the route to follow where title has passed to the administration, the building has been demolished or the public service has been established. The annulled act and the remaining acts that survive must be identified. [2] If the property is used for another purpose or is left unused, the right of repurchase discussed in the article Right to Repurchase an Expropriated Property may also be considered.
The result of the administrative decision in the land registry, the finality of the civil court decision, the compensation to be returned and the actual damage are assessed separately. Acceptance of the annulment action does not mean automatic return of title on the same day in every file. Where the administration does not implement the decision, or implementation becomes impossible, the appropriate application, the full remedy action and, where necessary, real-right remedies are determined according to the nature of the file. It cannot be assumed that the property and the entire compensation will both be retained while compensation already collected is disregarded.
Conclusion
What determines success in annulling an expropriation is not rejecting public interest in the abstract, but having the correct act reviewed, within the correct time limit and before the correct court, on concrete grounds of unlawfulness. The administrative action and the compensation and registration proceedings must be followed together; current Constitutional Court decisions and separate protection requests must be reflected in both files in time.
Related articles: Determination of Expropriation Compensation and Title Registration Action; Urgent Expropriation and Early Taking of Possession; Partial Expropriation: Loss of Value in the Remaining Part
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a low compensation amount annul the expropriation?
Taken alone, a claim of low compensation is examined primarily in the compensation and registration action. To annul the act, separate administrative unlawfulness must be shown.
Does the general sixty-day period apply to an annulment action?
In an ordinary expropriation, the special thirty-day period in Article 14 is the important one. The start date cannot be calculated without knowing the type of notice and the nature of the act.
Can one co-owner bring an action alone?
Yes. Article 14 recognizes the right of co-owners to sue alone. The scope of the claim and its effect on the other co-owners must be assessed separately.
Can a stay of the compensation file be requested without a stay of execution?
After the recent Constitutional Court annulments, the former absolute condition can no longer be maintained. The request must be framed under the current provisions and Article 165 of the HMK, by documenting that the administrative action has been filed.
Does an annulment decision automatically restore the title deed?
In every case, no. The existing registration, the civil court decision and actual use are examined to determine the steps needed to implement the decision.
Sources and legal bases
[1] Expropriation Law No. 2942 (Kamulaştırma Kanunu), Articles 6, 10, 14.
[2] Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), Articles 2, 5, 8, 11, 15, 20/A, 27, 28, 34.
[3] Council of State Law No. 2575 (Danıştay Kanunu), Article 24.
[4] Constitutional Court (AYM), December 25, 2024, E.2024/101, K.2024/232.
[5] Constitutional Court (AYM), July 10, 2025, E.2025/148, K.2025/141 — full text.
[6] Constitutional Court (AYM), February 12, 2026, E.2025/190, K.2026/38 — full text.