Objection to and Annulment Action Against Parcelling: Article 18 Application, Readjustment Partnership Share and Misallocated Plots

Shrinking a plot, moving it elsewhere or turning it into shares held with other persons does not by itself show that a parcelling operation is unlawful. However, the calculation of the deduction, the location of the new parcel and the reasons for the allocation are subject to judicial review. The owner may object to the administration by examining the approval decisions and the technical documents, may bring an annulment action before the administrative court if the conditions are met, and may request a stay of execution.

Three distinctions are decisive: 45 percent is the upper limit of the DOP, not an automatic deduction rate. The display of the plan and the start of an individual action period are not the same matter. An annulment ruling also does not automatically restore the land registry records in every case.

This article covers the general parcelling regime under Article 18 of Zoning Law No. 3194 (İmar Kanunu) in Türkiye. Procedures based on special laws require a separate review of authority, procedure and litigation rules. For the legal research, the texts accessed as of October 13, 2026 were used; the lawfulness of past operations is assessed under the rules in force on the date of the operation.

What Is a Parcelling Operation and How Does It Differ from a Zoning Plan?

A zoning plan determines how an area may be used, for example for housing, commerce, industry, roads or parks, and sets the building conditions. Parcelling puts these decisions into practice on the land and in property ownership. Cadastral parcels within a readjustment area are merged; areas needed for public services are set aside under the legislation; and the remaining land is distributed to the rights holders as new zoning parcels. For the document that defines building conditions, see the article Zoning Status Certificate and Building Conditions.

Article 18 of Law No. 3194 allows these operations to be carried out without the consent of all owners. Therefore, the objection "my consent was not obtained" alone is not enough for annulment under the general regime. However, the law's reservation of consent for specific allocation, exchange or settlement methods remains. 1, Article 18

A parcelling operation is an individual administrative act with concrete consequences for each owner's property. For this reason, the approving authority and the rules of competence matter. Under Article 19 of the Law, the general order involves approval by the municipal executive committee (encümen) or the provincial administrative council; in metropolitan municipalities and areas with special-authority administrations, the relevant special provisions also apply. It cannot be assumed that every operation is approved by the municipal council.

For example, an objection to planning a plot as a park targets the plan decision. Allocating an owner who remains with a plot in a place that is needlessly distant and unsuitable, although the plot could have been allocated nearby, relates to the distribution of the parcelling. Unless it is determined which act caused the unlawfulness, the subject of the action and the claim cannot be framed correctly.

Display of the Parcelling Plan and Objection Procedure

Thirty-day display and PARSİD notification

Article 19 of Law No. 3194 provides for a one-month display period. Article 26 of the Regulation on Land and Plot Arrangements, as amended on September 11, 2025, provides that parcelling plans are to be displayed at the administration simultaneously for thirty days, published on the administration's website and entered into the PARSİD system. The Regulation also provides for notification to property owners through e-Devlet (the Turkish e-government portal). 1, Article 19 2, Article 26

The display is not a mere announcement text. The parcelling maps, the list of parcels entering the operation and the display distribution schedule are important together. The owner should compare the former block and parcel number with the new allocation information and keep the display start and end dates as well as the electronic notification records.

A PARSİD or e-Devlet announcement should not be accepted in every case as electronic notification within the meaning of Law No. 7201 on Notification (Tebligat Kanunu) without examining its content. Yet it is wrong to say that these records have no bearing on proving when the operation became known. Which documents the notice contained, and the facts of access and knowledge, are evaluated in the specific file.

What should an objection petition state?

The objection should be addressed to the competent administration that approved the operation, and it should expressly state the former and new parcel information, the date and number of the approval decision, the deduction or allocation error, and the correction requested. The Regulation also allows information requests and objections to be submitted through PARSİD. Proof of the filing and of the delivery of the attachments should be kept.

Instead of saying "my plot has become smaller," the petition should explain that the previous share of withdrawal was not taken into account, or that a nearby allocation was possible in the same place but a distant parcel was given. The technical annexes may include the former title deed record, the previous implementation schedule, the building permit, the position of the structure and a comparative sketch. Care should be taken that the time limit for filing an action does not run out while the documents are being completed.

If an objection is accepted, is a new display required?

When a parcelling plan is changed, the display and finalization process is, as a rule, repeated. However, the Regulation allows the process to continue without a new display where the owners affected by the change are notified and given a ten-day objection period, or where their consent is obtained. This special rule does not mean that the initial display period is ten days. A "preliminary display" (ön askı) made by the administration for information purposes does not replace the mandatory display. 2, Article 26

How Is the Time Limit Calculated in a Parcelling Annulment Action?

General time limit, notification and date of knowledge

Where no special time limit applies, the period for filing an action before the administrative court is sixty days. In calculating the period, the written notification, the date the act became known, any administrative application and the dates of each are considered together. The day following the triggering event is the starting point; the last day and the rules on suspension of work are checked separately. 3, Articles 7–8

Because a parcelling act is individual in nature, the end of the display period does not automatically start the same personal action period for all owners. Conversely, where proper notification has been made, or where it is clearly shown that the whole act was learned with all its elements, it is not safe to wait on the argument that no notification was made.

In the decision of the Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers of the Council of State (Danıştay İdari Dava Daireleri Kurulu) dated June 16, 2025, E.2025/410, K.2025/1330, this distinction is illustrated by a concrete example. In the case, the owner paid on May 11, 2022 and received a new title deed copy; the decisions and documents about the act were received on November 25, 2022. The Plenary took the second date, on which the act was learned with all its elements in light of the file's particulars, as the basis, found that the action filed on December 2, 2022 was not out of time, and reversed the decision of persistence. This decision does not mean that each new document request revives an expired period. 4

On the other hand, in the 6th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 6. Daire) decision dated November 27, 2025, E.2022/940, K.2025/6163, a ruling on an older implementation in Antalya/Muratpaşa was found not appropriate because the date of knowledge had not been sufficiently investigated. It was stated that records relating to the land registry, building permit, tax and inheritance processes should be examined. The outcome of the decision is reversal; it cannot be said that the Council of State directly rejected the case for expiry of the time limit. The practical lesson of the decision is that the date of knowledge must be established by concrete documents, not only by the claimant's statement. 5

Does an application to the administration reset the time limit?

Under Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), if, within the period for filing an action, a request is made for the act to be removed, withdrawn, amended or replaced by a new act, the running period is suspended. If no answer is given within thirty days, the request is deemed rejected. After an express or implied rejection, the time that elapsed up to the application is counted, and the remaining period continues to run. A fresh sixty-day period is not granted. 3, Article 11

For example, if an administrative application under Article 11 is made after twenty days of the sixty-day period have passed, then, after the rejection, the remaining forty-day part normally applies. This example assumes that the start date has been correctly determined and that no special time-limit rule applies.

A request merely for a copy of the file, an information request submitted through CİMER, or the repetition of the same application does not by itself have the same suspensive effect. The effect of an objection to the display also depends on the content of the petition, the stage of the operation and the notifications. In a general parcelling regime, an administrative objection is not mandatory before filing an action.

Does the five-year outer limit extend the sixty-day period?

Article 8 of Law No. 3194 provides that, against finalized zoning or parcelling plans, an action may in any event be brought within five years from their finalization. This provision does not mean that a five-year wait is permitted after the act became known. The general action period and the outer limit must be examined together. 1, Article 8

Timing is also important for older implementations. In the 6th Chamber of the Council of State decision dated June 12, 2023, E.2021/8663, K.2023/5800, the application of the restriction that entered into force on July 1, 2020 to acts that had already become final was assessed in terms of legal certainty, and the decision based on expiry of the time limit was reversed. Therefore, for an old parcelling, one cannot conclude solely from "five years have passed" or "it was not notified, so I can sue without limit." 6

How Is the Readjustment Partnership Share (DOP) Reviewed?

45 percent is an upper limit, not every application's rate

The readjustment partnership share, known as DOP (düzenleme ortaklık payı), is the share withdrawn from the properties entering a readjustment for general and public service areas as set out in the legislation. The statutory upper limit is 45 percent. The actual rate is determined in line with the needs of the readjustment area and the calculation rules. The administration may not withdraw 45 percent, regardless of needs, merely because the upper limit permits it. 1, Article 18

For example, if a 1,000 m² plot that was fully included in the operation, with no earlier withdrawal or deduction, is assumed to have a lawful DOP rate of 30 percent, the DOP is 300 m² and the area remaining for distribution is 700 m². Withdrawing 450 m² from the same plot without a reason cannot be defended solely by the statement "45 percent was not exceeded." This example assumes there was no expropriation or area correction.

Review is not limited to multiplying figures in the owner's schedule. The total calculation for the area should show which areas were accepted in the DOP scope, whether closed zoning and cadastral roads were first deducted, and the reasons for including and excluding parcels from the operation. An incorrect exemption or area record for one parcel may also affect the deductions of other owners.

For which purposes can the DOP be used?

The Law regulates, in addition to roads and parks, education, health, municipal services and other specific general and public service areas. The scope of the list at the date of the operation must be taken into account. The DOP is not a general means of obtaining commercial land that can be freely sold to the municipality; the use of the area obtained and its registration regime are separately supervised. 1, Article 18

The fact that the public service need exceeds 45 percent does not justify deducting the excess without limit and without compensation. The routes to public ownership in Articles 13 and 18 of the Law and Article 15 of the Regulation apply. Since there are current special provisions on allocating private ownership in a public service area to be expropriated, it is also not right to say in every case, for the same reason, that leaving shares in a public area is unlawful.

Can a second DOP be taken from the same property?

The principle is that no more than one DOP is taken from a parcel. However, there are exceptions. A supplementary deduction may be made where, through a plan decision, there is an increase in the building condition, in population, in value, and where the previous deductions are taken into account under the statutory conditions. The current Regulation also governs the reporting of the increase in value and the completion of the deduction to the rate calculated in the new implementation. 1, Article 18 2, Article 16

The completion to the new rate of withdrawals under the earlier regime of Law No. 2981 and of withdrawals made by merger and split without a parcelling operation is assessed separately. Therefore, without seeing the legal nature of the earlier act, its date, the root parcel area and the withdrawal documents, one cannot say that "a second deduction is absolutely prohibited." Equally, applying the full rate again to the remaining area as if no previous deduction had been made is not a correct calculation method.

For parcels with a licensed building, separate provisions govern the conversion of the additional DOP into a monetary payment rather than a physical area deduction. The tax return statement, the calculation of the amount and the effect on the new permit must be examined separately. The DOP value, the expropriation price and the administration's implementation costs are different legal items.

Are old KOP records the same as the DOP?

The public partnership share (kamu ortaklık payı, KOP) in earlier implementations is a form of co-ownership that may produce different results from the DOP. Article 17 of the Regulation specifically governs re-parcelling of KOP areas before July 10, 2019. Depending on whether the area can be formed by the DOP, different outcomes may arise, such as allocation to private ownership or registration in the name of existing shareholders in public use. A KOP statement in an old decision should not be carried unconditionally into current practice. 2, Article 17/3

Is It Lawful to Move a Plot Elsewhere or Allocate It in Shares?

Priority is the same location, or if impossible, the nearest equivalent location

The Law provides that the allocation is to be made first from the place where the property is located, and, where this is not possible, that the nearest equivalent area is to be considered. The Regulation considers technical requirements together with the in-place allocations of other owners. Accordingly, the owner cannot demand that the old boundaries be preserved in every case, and the administration may not allocate any location without giving reasons. 1, Article 18 2, Article 17

In the 6th Chamber of the Council of State decision dated May 28, 2021, E.2018/4836, K.2021/7323, the fact that the newly allocated parcels were adjacent to each other was not regarded as sufficient. It was stated that the reasons why no allocation was made where the old parcel was located, and whether the nearest alternatives had been technically investigated, had to be explained. Contradictions in the expert assessments on the DOP for the same implementation were also to be resolved by a new panel, and the decision was reversed. The decision does not order the allocation of a specific parcel to the claimant. 7

In disputes of this kind, the strongest evidence is a comparison that shows the old and new parcels in the same coordinate system. Beyond the distance between them, the road frontage, slope, shape, buildable area, use decision and alternative allocations should be explained. The claim that "the new location is less valuable" must be supported by concrete technical characteristics. The explanations in the tapu tahsis belgesine dayalı tapu tescili article may also be used for comparison.

A share-based allocation is not always grounds for annulment

Where the amount left to the rights holder does not reach the minimum zoning parcel size, or there are other technical or legal obstacles, an allocation in shares is possible. The Regulation provides that, in such cases, the amount is to be allocated in shares within a single zoning parcel as far as possible. However, making unnecessary share allocations where a separate allocation was possible is open to review. 2, Article 17

Where land was previously held in shares, the consent of the owners or actual use that has been documented in accordance with the legislation is important in separating it. Actual use is not established only by the statement "everyone knows where their land is." Documents such as on-site surveys, sketches, tax records and administrative approvals are evaluated. The minimum parcel conditions are still applied.

Existing building, construction permit and actual use

As a rule, structures that can be protected under the plan and legislation should be left on a whole, undivided zoning parcel, taking into account the minimum parcel conditions as well. The position of the structure, its permit and conformity with the project, its protection status and its relation to the boundaries must be determined. Not every existing building enjoys the same legal protection merely because it is on the land. 2, Articles 17–18

Where the structure extends into more than one new parcel, or where its entrance or necessary use area is left to another owner, technical review is required. However, a parcelling action does not by itself make an unlicensed structure lawful. The fact that no additional DOP can be taken because of a building should not turn into an unjustified additional burden on the other owners; the conditions for conversion into a monetary payment under the legislation are examined. This subject is also addressed separately in the article on objection to and annulment action against administrative fines for zoning violations.

Which Documents Should Be Gathered Before Filing?

Documents may be requested from the administration and, within the limits of standing and access conditions, from the land registry and cadastre offices. The registration number of the application and the version of the document delivered should be kept. Preparing a case with an old schedule after the plan has been changed following display may lead to discussing a distribution that is no longer in force. Personal data and the access scope of the file review must not be confused with publicly available online announcements. For a similar dispute, the article on annulment of a building permit may also be read.

Annulment Action, Expert Review and Stay of Execution

Who may bring the action and against which authority?

An annulment action requires a personal, legitimate and current interest in being harmed. The position of an owner or co-owner directly affected by the parcelling is assessed in this framework. Inheritance and representation documents must be completed. It should not be assumed that a site management or another body may file the action on behalf of owners. The broader assessment of interest in zoning plan cases is not automatically transferred to a parcelling dispute. 3, Article 2

The court of general jurisdiction is the administrative court. In disputes concerning immovable property, the place where the property is located is the basis for territorial jurisdiction. The action is directed against the administration or administrations that carried out or approved the act. The fact that a private surveying firm prepared the operation does not mean the parcelling annulment action is to be brought against that firm. 3, Article 34

The petition must clearly identify the approval decision and the rejection decision on the objection that are the subject of the action. Where the problem arises from the underlying zoning plan, it is considered whether the plan should also be challenged, within the framework of Article 7(4) of the Administrative Procedure Law and the time-limit conditions. The existence of registration in the land registry does not by itself carry the question of the lawfulness of the administrative parcelling into the civil courts; any private-law claims arising are subject to their own rules on jurisdiction.

Which questions should be put to the expert?

Technical review should not be left to the single question "Is it in accordance with the law?" The basis for the readjustment boundary, conformity with the underlying plan, the DOP share and its denominator, earlier withdrawals, the possibility of allocation in the same place, the necessity of share allocation and the protection of structures should each be addressed separately. The "technical necessity" put forward in the administration's defence should be explainable through plans and calculations.

In the 6th Chamber of the Council of State decision dated December 9, 2025, E.2025/5885, K.2025/6615, because of contradictory assessments of the same implementation and incomplete technical review, it was accepted that a new expert panel should carry out the examination. Every version of the implementation's maps and distribution documents, the condition of public areas such as the stream, and the application of earlier annulment decisions should be investigated. The Council of State reversed the regional administrative court's decision that partly annulled the case; the lower court's reasoning on the stream and the DOP must not be presented as an accepted finding on the merits by the Council of State. 8 On this point, the article on objection to an expert report may also be read together.

Does filing an action stop the implementation?

No. Filing an action does not in itself stop the execution of the act. To obtain a stay of execution, a clear unlawfulness and damage that would be difficult or impossible to remedy if the act is implemented must both be shown. 3, Article 27

In a concrete case, the commencement of construction, the deterioration of a protectable structure's use or new acts that make reversal difficult may be explained with documents. Relying only on abstract claims of loss of value may not be sufficient. Against decisions on a stay of execution, a single objection may be made within seven days of the notification of the decision under the general procedure.

Litigation expenses may include stamp duty, notification costs, on-site examination and expert fees. The contractual attorney fee in a case handled through a lawyer is different from the counter-representation fee the court may award. Where security and conditions for a stay of execution apply, legal aid is also assessed separately. A fixed total cost cannot be reliably given without seeing the file.

If a Parcelling Is Annulled, What Happens to the Title and Existing Structures?

Return to the original parcel versus a new implementation

The reasoning and scope of the annulment decision are decisive. If the error relates only to a specific parcel, correction through the existing parcels may be possible. Where the error affects common foundations, such as the DOP or the readjustment boundary, a broader re-parcelling may be required. Article 37 of the Regulation governs this distinction and the reversal procedures. 2, Article 37 For parcels with protected status, see the article on the effect of site and conservation decisions on immovable property.

Although the general annulment rule provides for a return to the original parcels, subsequently carried out construction, permits, floor ownership and other dispositions must be taken into account. In the cases of legal or factual impossibility under Article 18 of the Law, a new implementation on the basis of the registered parcels in line with the court decision may be considered, along with allocation or compensation solutions under the statutory conditions. The Regulation also requires a detailed technical report explaining why reversal cannot be carried out. 1, Article 18 2, Article 37

Therefore, the statement "if I win the case, the old title deed comes back automatically" is incomplete. The administration's implementation of the decision, the necessary technical operations and the land registry stage must be followed. The administration may not repeat the reasoning of unlawfulness of the court in the new act. For further details, see the article on title deed after annulment of a zoning implementation.

Enforcement of the decision, appeals and damage claims

Under Article 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law, the administration must comply with the requirements of the decision without delay, and the general implementation period under the Law may not exceed thirty days from the notification of the decision to the administration. A challenge to the decision does not by itself stop its enforcement; a stay decision on this point must be separately considered. 3, Articles 28 and 52

Under the general procedure, there is a thirty-day period for appeal (istinaf) against a first-instance decision. In parcelling actions, for regional administrative court decisions the appeal regime to the Council of State under Article 46 of the Administrative Procedure Law is also taken into account; special procedural rules are reserved. Annulment does not mean that all existing construction permits automatically cease to exist, or that all damage has automatically been compensated.

Where the decision is not implemented, or where damage arises from an unlawful act, separate administrative applications and full remedy claims may be assessed. The existence and amount of the damage, its connection with the act, and the relevant time limits must be established separately. Winning an annulment action does not prove these elements by itself. Further details can be found in the article on state liability arising from land registry records.

Conclusion

In a parcelling dispute, effective legal review rests on reading the records that show the time limit together with the technical distribution file. First, the act and the dates of knowledge must be determined; then the DOP calculation, earlier withdrawals, the location of the allocation and the necessity of share allocation should be compared.

A reduction in area or a change of location is not, by itself, unlawful. On the other hand, failure to explain the possibility of allocation in the same place, a deduction based on the wrong area, disregard of earlier withdrawals and insufficient technical reasoning are important in annulment review. The claims for annulment and for a stay of execution should rest on concrete documents; after the decision, the correction, reversal and registration process must also be followed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the municipality parcel my land without my consent?

Generally, yes. The application of Article 18 does not depend on the consent of all owners. However, the rules on authority, deduction, allocation and procedure must be observed, and in certain special solutions consent may be separately required.

Must 45 percent always be deducted from my plot in a parcelling operation?

No. 45 percent is the upper limit. The actual DOP rate is determined by the needs of the readjustment area and the calculation rules. Earlier withdrawals and the implementation history of the parcel are also reviewed.

I did not object during the display period; has my right to sue ended completely?

This alone does not mean that it has ended. Notification, the date on which the act was learned with all its elements, the general time limit and the applicable outer limit are considered together. It cannot be assumed that there is an unlimited right to sue.

Can I obtain a new action period by applying to the municipality again?

A time limit that has passed is, as a rule, not revived by repeating the same request. However, a timely application that meets the conditions of Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law stops the running period, and the remaining part continues to run after the rejection.

Is being given a share in a parcel instead of my separate plot grounds for annulment?

Not always. The minimum parcel size and technical or legal necessities may require a share-based allocation. Whether a separate or more suitable allocation was possible, and why it was not made, must be investigated technically.

Does filing an action automatically stop new land registry transactions?

No. Filing an action has no automatic suspensive effect. If the conditions are met, a stay of execution should be requested, and the scope of any decision given must be assessed in relation to the relevant transactions.

If the parcelling is annulled, is my old plot returned exactly as it was?

Not in every case. Depending on the scope of the annulment and whether the existing construction and reversal are possible, a return to the original parcel, a correction or a new parcelling may be required. Separate implementation steps are taken for the land registry records.

Which are the most important documents for starting to prepare a case?

The approval decisions, notification records, former and new title deeds, distribution schedules, the DOP calculation and the parcelling maps have priority. If there is a structure, the permit and the project should also be examined. The time limit must not be missed while the documents are being completed.

Sources and legal bases

1. Zoning Law No. 3194 (İmar Kanunu): Especially Articles 8, 13, 18 and 19. Current consolidated text — LEXPERA.
2. Regulation on Land and Plot Arrangements (Arazi ve Arsa Düzenlemeleri Hakkında Yönetmelik): Especially Articles 14–18, 26 and 37, including the amendments of September 11, 2025. Current consolidated text — LEXPERA.
3. Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK): Especially Articles 2, 7–8, 11, 27–28, 34, 45–46 and 52. Current consolidated text — LEXPERA.
4. Council of State Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers, June 16, 2025, E.2025/410, K.2025/1330: Scope of knowledge and time limit for filing. Decision record — FulLegal. Access to the full text on the page may require a subscription; the reasoning and operative part provided by the search service were reviewed for this research.
5. Council of State 6th Chamber, November 27, 2025, E.2022/940, K.2025/6163: Investigation of the date of knowledge through concrete records. Decision text — İYUK.com.tr.
6. Council of State 6th Chamber, June 12, 2023, E.2021/8663, K.2023/5800: Five-year limitation and earlier acts. Official decision text — Council of State PDF.
7. Council of State 6th Chamber, May 28, 2021, E.2018/4836, K.2021/7323: Allocation on the same or nearest site and contradictory expert reports. Decision text record — İçtihatlar. Because direct access may be obstructed, the reasoning and operative part presented by the search service were used for this research.
8. Council of State 6th Chamber, December 9, 2025, E.2025/5885, K.2025/6615: Incomplete examination, versions of the implementation and consistency of expert assessments. Official decision text — Council of State Decision Search.