A person who loses a property, a share in it or another right of economic value because the land registry was kept incorrectly may, where the conditions are met, bring a compensation action against the Treasury under Article 1007 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK). This liability does not depend on proving fault on the part of the registry official. However, not every cancellation of title automatically gives rise to compensation. The registry act, the unlawfulness, the damage that has actually occurred and the causal link between them are examined together. The valuation date must also be determined according to how the loss arose. 146
Whether a property that cannot be recovered can be claimed from the State as its value is a different legal question. The seller’s failure to perform, a company manager exceeding his authority, or a sham transaction between heirs does not by itself prove the State’s liability. In the file, it must first be shown which registry act caused the loss. Unlike contractual claims against private persons, this guide addresses the route under Article 1007 TMK. 12
Which damages does TMK 1007 cover?
The formation and keeping of the register are assessed together
The State’s liability is not limited to the act of the official who made the last entry in the land register. Steps running from the cadastral determination to the formation of the register may be connected. Entering a wrong owner, a registration without legal basis, an incorrect surface area and private ownership records later found to concern public property can all be examined from this angle. In each case, the existence of the error, the loss of a protectable right and the damage are set out separately. 156
For example, where a correction of a survey reduces the area shown in the title, the technical file and the ownership position must be examined together. Comparing the old and new square metres alone may not be enough. Whether the shortfall can be made up from the neighbouring parcel, which entries were visible when the title was acquired, and whether the correction has become final all affect the result. In a 2026 Court of Cassation decision these links were assessed on the facts of the case. 6 This issue is also covered separately in the article cancellation of a land transfer made with a forged power of attorney, identity or signature.
Strict liability is not unlimited liability
The claimant may apply to the State without having to prove the personal negligence of the official or that a crime was committed. But an actual loss must exist. Raising a claim, bringing an action concerning the property, or worrying that its value will fall does not in every case mean that a loss has occurred. It is assessed whether the loss can be remedied by correcting the register and whether the real right has definitively been lost. 14
The same method is applied to files involving a forged power of attorney, a forged identity document or a document recording a transaction contrary to the facts. The link between the forgery allegation and the keeping of the register is investigated. A criminal investigation may provide important evidence; however, a criminal complaint does not replace a compensation action and does not automatically suspend all time limits in civil proceedings. 123
Who is the defendant, and in which court is the action brought?
A compensation claim under TMK 1007 is, in practice, directed against the Treasury as the State. Naming only the land registry office or the official who carried out the transaction as the defendant may not match the legal nature of the claim. The State’s right of recourse against a faulty official is a separate relationship from the claimant’s action against the Treasury. The claimant is not required to sue the official first. 15
Such an action is, as a rule, heard by the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi). TMK 1007 provides that an action concerning the liability of the State is heard by the court of the place where the land register is kept. Seeking annulment of an administrative act and seeking compensation for a loss arising from the register must not be confused. In files where a zoning, forest or cadastral act must be reviewed separately, the judicial route and time limit of each claim are determined according to its own legal nature. 135
For a general TMK 1007 claim, it cannot be said that mediation is mandatory merely because the case concerns real estate. The real estate disputes listed in Article 18/B of Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (HUAK) do not cover all land registry and compensation actions. If the claim also falls into another category of mediation as a condition of suit, that classification is made separately. An optional meeting or a petition to the administration should not be relied on on the assumption that it preserves the limitation period. 7 For a similar dispute, the article third-party good faith and cancellation of title may also be reviewed.
When does the time limit for bringing an action begin?
The ten-year limitation period: from which date is it calculated?
The Court of Cassation applies the ten-year general limitation period under Article 146 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) to compensation actions under TMK 1007. In typical cases where ownership is lost through a court judgment, the starting point is linked to the finality of the judgment that makes the loss definitive. However, an erroneous cadastral determination, a surface-area correction and a transfer that takes place later do not share the same chain of dates. First identify the type of loss, then the start event that applies. 256
The time limit for bringing an action under the Cadastre Law and the limitation period for compensation are not the same concept. The fact that an ownership claim based on a cause predating the cadastre can no longer be heard may also affect the assessment of a concrete compensation claim. On the other hand, it is equally wrong to tie every TMK 1007 action automatically to the rule “ten years from the cadastre”. 5 For comparison, the explanations in the article limitation periods and preclusive time limits for bringing an action may be used.
For old losses, the date of learning alone should not be relied on
In its decision of February 26, 2025, E. 2024/8748, K. 2025/2589, the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi) dealt with the claim that in the 1998 cadastral survey, determinations had been made in favour of other persons bearing the name of the deceased, and that this was learned of in 2023. Taking into account also the case law on the development of effective remedies in the earlier period, the chamber affirmed the dismissal of the action filed in 2023. The decision shows that the assumption “I have only just learned of it, so the period starts today” is not safe. 5
The circumstances of this old cadastral dispute and the late application cannot be carried over to all files. The position of an owner whose title was recently confirmed by a final judgment differs from that of a person who objected many years earlier to a determination made in another’s favour. At the initial review, the dates of the determination, announcement, finality, acquisition, learning and filing should be set out in a single table.
How is compensation calculated?
The value adopted must cover the actual loss
The aim is to compensate, in money, for the position the claimant’s property would be in had the harmful registry act not occurred. For this reason, the sale price stated in the title, the property-tax value or the price in a property advert is not compensation on its own. What is determined is the lost share, the area, the nature of the property and its economic features at the correct valuation date. 48
For rural land, the net income method comes to the fore; for a building plot, comparison with suitable comparable sales. The existence, nature and legal status of any structures, and the conditions for including them in the calculation, are examined separately. The expert must explain why the chosen comparable is suitable and what adjustments were made for superior or inferior features. The mere fact that the title describes the property as “field” does not by itself answer all valuation questions. 48
Why do two current decisions treat the valuation date differently?
| Appearance of the loss | Decision examined | Valuation approach in the decision |
|---|---|---|
| Cancellation of title on account of forest status | Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), November 5, 2025, E. 2024/270, K. 2025/681 | The date on which the decision cancelling the title and re-registering it became final |
| Reduction of area in a renewal cadastre | 5th Civil Chamber, March 30, 2026, E. 2025/13553, K. 2026/5270 | Value at the date of the action, where a concrete loss of area occurred |
In the 2025 decision of the Civil General Assembly, a claim for compensation was examined in respect of a field register cancelled on the ground of forest status. The Assembly took the date of finality as the reference point; it asked for an expert report with agricultural data for the relevant year and a comparison with files on neighbouring properties. The court’s direct adoption of the square-metre price from the neighbouring files and its own calculation were not considered sufficient; the decision of persistence (direnme) was changed and the judgment was quashed with extended reasoning. 4
The 5th Civil Chamber decision of 2026 concerns property whose area decreased through a renewal cadastre. For this loss, the chamber required the value at the date of the action and quashed the judgment that had based its decision on the date the cadastral determination became final. Accordingly, even within two files based on the same article, a single date cannot be proposed without first seeing how the loss legally arose. 6
Interest and the amount claimed must be set out separately
The valuation date and the start of interest are not the same question. The type of interest requested in the petition, the starting event and the principal must be stated clearly. Simply because the property is valuable, commercial interest is not applied automatically. The fact that the price is determined by an expert during the proceedings does not remove the need to frame the claim correctly in procedural terms, or to increase it. The conditions for an action for an indeterminate claim are assessed concretely under Article 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK). 23
Which evidence should be prepared?
The file should not consist of the current land register extract alone. Documents showing how the acquisition and the loss took place should be submitted together; where the claimant cannot reach official records, the court should be asked to obtain them. The purpose of each document in relation to the claim should be explained within the HMK provisions on evidence and expert reports. 3
| Document group | Main question it clarifies |
|---|---|
| Current land register record and transaction documents | From whom, and by which transaction, was the right acquired? |
| Cadastral record, plan and survey documents | At what stage did the error arise? |
| Correction or cancellation decision, record of finality | By which act did the loss become final? |
| Comparable sales, zoning and agricultural data | What was the real value on the correct date? |
| Bank records and earlier payments received | Was the same loss compensated in another way? |
An objection to an expert report should not be limited to the statement that “the price is low”. A wrong date, unsuitable comparables, an error in the share ratio, an incomplete area calculation or income data without a stated source should each be set out under separate headings. Against the report, the period under Article 281 of the HMK is two weeks from notification; the possibility of an additional period under the same article is assessed on its own conditions. 3 Further details can be found in the article objection to an expert report.
Can a land title action and a compensation action be pursued together?
Where recovery of the real right is possible, the legal and factual position of that possibility is assessed first. If the question whether a loss has arisen in the compensation file depends on the outcome of another land title action, a stay pending a preliminary question may arise under Article 165 of the HMK. No fixed formula can be set that a separate action to cancel title is always required in each case, or that it is never needed. 13
A claim against a private person for the price and a claim against the Treasury have different defendants and legal bases. Whether the claims may be raised in the same file, brought in the alternative or separated are planned under the procedural rules. The same loss cannot be collected twice. If there is a payment from the seller, a recovered area or another compensation, its effect must be shown in the calculation of damages. 23
For the stage after judgment, see the guide on enforcing a title judgment; where the matter is linked to the act of a company representative, see the review of an unauthorised transfer of company property. In this respect, the article on cancellation of title for abuse of a power of attorney may also be read together.
Conclusion
The core of a TMK 1007 action is the documentation of the concrete loss arising from a registry act. Without identifying the correct defendant, the start of the loss and the valuation date, a monetary calculation remains incomplete. The 2025 and 2026 decisions in particular require that the valuation date be separated according to the type of event. When the land chain, documents evidencing finality and an auditable expert calculation are brought together, the basis of the compensation claim becomes clear.
Frequently Asked Questions
If my title is cancelled, will the State necessarily pay?
No. The connection between the cancellation and the keeping of the register, the loss of a protectable right, actual damage and the causal link are examined. Not every private-law dispute falls within TMK 1007. 14
Do I have to prove the fault of the land registry official?
In a TMK 1007 claim against the State, personal fault need not be proven. However, the link between the registry act and the loss must be shown. The State’s recourse relationship with the official is separate. 15
Is the action brought against the land registry office?
A compensation claim concerning the liability of the State is, in practice, directed against the Treasury. Naming the land registry office alone as the defendant should not be relied on. 15
Does the time limit in every case start from the date I obtained the title?
No. In calculating the ten-year limitation period, the finality of the loss of ownership and the way the damage arose are important. In old cadastral disputes, the preclusive time limit and the development of case law on the available remedy are also assessed. 25
Is compensation determined by the current sale advert?
An advert alone is not sufficient. For a reasoned calculation, the correct valuation date, the nature of the plot or land, real comparable sales and official data must be used. 468
Is a cancellation decision always required where the surface area has decreased?
The occurrence of the loss is examined by reference to the concrete correction or renewal process. In decision 2026/5270, the loss of area arising from a renewal cadastre was examined, and the value at the date of the action was adopted. 6
Must I disclose the price I received from the seller?
Yes. Recovery of the same loss by another route may affect the compensation calculation. A claim that would secure double recovery over the actual loss cannot be made. 24
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code, in particular Articles 1007 and 1023–1025; official consolidated text, accessed October 13, 2026. Source link
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations, in particular Articles 49–52, 61 et seq., 117 and 146; official text, accessed October 13, 2026. Source link
- Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure, in particular Articles 2, 107, 111, 165, 190, 266 and 281; official text, accessed October 13, 2026. Source link
- Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), November 5, 2025, E. 2024/270, K. 2025/681. Full text of the decision; cancellation on account of forest status, valuation date and expert review. The full text in a secondary publication was reviewed; accessed October 13, 2026.
- 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi), February 26, 2025, E. 2024/8748, K. 2025/2589. Full text of the decision; old cadastral survey, limitation period and reasonable time for application. Full text from a secondary source; accessed October 13, 2026.
- 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi), March 30, 2026, E. 2025/13553, K. 2026/5270. Full text of the decision; loss of area and valuation at the date of the action. Full text from a secondary source; accessed October 13, 2026.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (HUAK), in particular Article 18/B; official text, accessed October 13, 2026. Source link
- Law No. 2942 on Expropriation, Article 11; criteria relied on in case law for valuation under TMK 1007; official text, accessed October 13, 2026. Source link