An expropriation annotation in the land registry based on Article 7 of Law No. 2942 must be deleted ex officio once the six-month conditions in the Law are met. However, not every expropriation entry is of the same nature. First the basis, the date and, if there is one, the court file of the annotation must be determined; then an application to the land registry or a lawsuit for deletion of the annotation should be considered.
What exactly does the entry seen in the land registry mean?
Different entries may be made in the land registry during the expropriation process. An administrative annotation under Article 7, an entry connected with the prohibition on transfer under Article 31/b, a notation made because of an early-possession order, and a court injunction are not the same. The short description on the e-Devlet screen may not by itself provide sufficient review. The journal number (yevmiye) of the entry and its supporting document need to be seen.
The Article 7 annotation creates information in the registry about the expropriation process. This provision also requires the land registry to inform the administration if the owner changes. It is therefore not accurate to describe this annotation as an absolute prohibition on sale in every case. By contrast, Article 31/b contains a prohibition on transfer and disposition following the notification made under Article 10. The transaction from which the entry in the land registry arose directly affects sale and credit plans.
Why should one not be satisfied with the information that “there is an expropriation annotation”?
A parcel may have undergone subdivision, consolidation or a zoning implementation over time. If the entry on the old parcel has been carried over to the new parcel, the date of the original creation and the nature of the transfer are investigated. An update of the entry is not always a new expropriation act or the start of a new time limit. The property’s historical records are therefore important.
The name of the administration may also have changed. A change in municipal boundaries, the closure of an institution or the transfer of a function to another institution may affect to whom the application should be addressed. Before filing a lawsuit directly on the basis of the old institution’s name in the registry, it must be determined to which institution the rights and obligations have passed.
How is the six-month period applied?
The last paragraph of Article 7 is based on the submission to the land registry, within six months from the date of the annotation, of a document obtained from the court showing that a request for determination of compensation and registration in the administration’s name has been made under Article 10. If the document is not produced, the land registry authority is to delete the annotation ex officio. What the Law requires is not merely an investment letter or a public-interest decision.
In examining this period, the date of the annotation, the date the lawsuit was filed and the date the court document was presented to the land registry must be recorded separately. The administration’s reply that “our expropriation program continues” does not replace the document showing the Article 10 lawsuit. If a file number is given, it is also checked whether it actually relates to the property and right in question.
Does the expropriation decision also disappear once six months have passed?
Deletion of the annotation and annulment of the expropriation decision are not the same result. Deletion concerns a specific entry in the registry. The administration’s later acts, its filing of a new lawsuit or the existence of another legal basis are assessed separately. The removal of the annotation therefore does not guarantee that the property can never be expropriated.
Whether the property remains within a road, park or other public service area in the zoning plan can also be independent of the annotation. When the annotation is removed, the zoning plan does not change by itself. Whether a sale can be made, the right to build and the end of the threat of expropriation are different matters. The review should cover the zoning status and the administration’s procedural file as well as the land registry record.
How is the application to the land registry directorate prepared?
The application states the property’s province, district, neighborhood, block (ada) and parcel details; the applicant’s capacity as owner or representative; and the date and journal number of the entry sought to be deleted. If the conditions of Article 7 are relied upon, an inquiry is requested into the six-month period and whether the document was presented. A written notification of the result is requested.
The current land registry record, identity or representation document and any correspondence with the administration are attached. The application’s registration number and date of submission are kept. If the application is rejected, obtaining a reasoned reply instead of settling for an oral explanation makes it easier to determine the next legal route. It should be clear which record and document the land registry directorate relied on.
Is it necessary to write separately to the administration?
The administration may be asked about the status of the expropriation file, information on any lawsuit that has been filed and its intention regarding the removal of the entry. This correspondence may allow the dispute to be resolved without litigation. However, it should not be assumed that, because an information request or administrative application has been made, the limitation period running against another act has been suspended.
If the basis of the annotation is a court decision, an application to the relevant court file may be necessary. Asking the land registry directorate to act while disregarding the court decision is not a correct method. Which authority can remove which entry is determined from the supporting document. Having made the appropriate application does not by itself complete the necessary steps with the other institution.
In which court is the lawsuit for deletion of the annotation filed?
A private-law dispute concerning the removal of an expropriation annotation in the land registry is, depending on its nature, heard in the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) at the location of the property. The administration in whose favor the annotation was placed and the dispute concerning the right must be identified. It is not correct to name the land registry directorate as the sole defendant in every file. The requested outcome is explained in a manner suited to deletion of the annotation.
Annulment of the expropriation decision on grounds of public interest, competence or procedure is a separate administrative-court dispute. The request of a person seeking deletion of the land registry entry and that of a person seeking to annul the merits of the expropriation may not be the same. The type of lawsuit and jurisdiction must be chosen according to the concrete legal ground, not merely the heading.
Is there a benefit in filing a lawsuit for an annotation that should be deleted ex officio?
Where an entry that by law should be deleted ex officio is kept in the registry, the owner’s legal interest worthy of protection comes into play. For this, it must be shown that the entry actually continues and that the requested result has not already been achieved through another procedure. If the annotation is deleted after the lawsuit is filed, whether the lawsuit has become moot and which party is to bear the costs are examined separately.
In preparing the lawsuit, merely saying “six months have passed” is not a sufficient review of the file. The records of the filing of the lawsuit and of its presentation to the land registry, earlier and later encumbrances, the early-possession file and whether the expropriation has been completed are investigated. The effect of a lawsuit filed later on the existing deletion request is also discussed on the basis of the concrete dates.
A real decision: an entry that continues after early taking of possession
In the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi) of July 9, 2025, E.2025/3053, K.2025/10831, the deletion of an entry placed in the land registry after early taking of possession and assessed under Article 31/b was examined. It was established that no lawsuit for determination of compensation and registration under Article 10 had been filed within six months; the regional court’s dismissal on the merits of the appeal against the judgment ordering removal of the entry restricting ownership was affirmed on cassation appeal.
This example shows that one should not look only at the heading of the entry. However, the decision cannot be generalized to mean that all 31/b entries are automatically lifted after six months in every case. The early-possession process, the inactivity afterwards and the basis of the entry were assessed together. The status of a property for which an ordinary compensation lawsuit is pending is examined separately. Accessible transcription of the decision, including reasoning and ruling.
What evidence should the case file contain?
| Evidence | Question to examine |
|---|---|
| Land registry record with history and journal document | When and for what reason was the entry placed? |
| Expropriation decision and project plan | Which property and area does the entry cover? |
| Court file and record of the filing of the lawsuit | Was an Article 10 lawsuit filed? |
| Court letters sent to the land registry | Was the required document presented on time? |
| Applications to the land registry and the administration | What action was requested and what reply was given? |
| Documents on the old and new parcels | Has the transfer or scope of the entry changed? |
If technical review is needed, the link between the old parcel and the new parcel is shown on a map. If an entry affects the whole parcel although the annotation relates to only one part, the scope is clarified. If the property and the entry to be deleted are not sufficiently specific in the court decision, new correspondence may be required in land registry practice. The claim in the lawsuit should be prepared with enough clarity to reduce this possibility.
Litigation costs and enforcement of the decision
Costs are assessed having regard to the outcome of the lawsuit and whether the parties gave rise to the lawsuit. Removal of the annotation during the lawsuit does not prevent a ruling on costs. On the other hand, it cannot be said that in every application the costs will necessarily be imposed on the administration. The legal position and the merits at the date the lawsuit was filed are important.
Once the deletion decision is issued, the finality and correspondence requirements for its enforcement are examined. Enforcement of judgments concerning the property itself differs from collection of a monetary claim. It would not be correct to interpret the Constitutional Court (AYM) decision on enforcement of de facto expropriation compensation before finality as meaning that all changes in the land registry can be made immediately. For enforcement, the procedure between the court and the land registry must be completed.
At the end of the procedure, a new land registry record is obtained to verify that the relevant journal entry has actually been deleted. Other attachments, mortgages and injunctions are checked separately. If a sale or credit transaction is planned, one should not rely solely on the existence of a court decision; the current status in the registry should be seen. In this way the gap between legal success and actual completion of the transaction is closed.
Conclusion
In removing an expropriation annotation, the right starting point is to determine the legal type of the entry. The six-month rule in Article 7 is applied together with the dates of the lawsuit and of the presentation of the document to the land registry. When the land registry application, where necessary the deletion lawsuit, and the recording of the decision in the registry are followed within the same file plan, uncertainty for the owner can be reduced.
Related articles: Urgent Expropriation and Early Taking of Possession; Annulment Action Against Expropriation: Public Interest, Filing Deadline and Stay of Execution; Withdrawal From Expropriation by the Administration; Reacquisition of Expropriated Property: Use Contrary to Its Purpose, the Five-Year Period and the Right to Sue
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the entry in the land registry disappear automatically once six months have passed?
Under the conditions of Article 7 it must be deleted ex officio; in practice, one should check whether the entry continues and, if necessary, make an application.
Can a property with an expropriation annotation be sold?
It depends on the type of entry. An Article 7 annotation and a restriction on transfer based on Article 31/b or a court decision are not the same.
If there is an early-possession order, does the six-month period become irrelevant?
No. The subsequent compensation determination and registration process is examined. However, the outcome is determined by the basis of the entry and the dates of the file.
If the annotation is deleted, is the road designation in the zoning plan also lifted?
No. The land registry record and the zoning plan are separate acts. Amending or annulling the plan requires different routes of application.
I wrote to the administration about the annotation; have all my litigation time limits been suspended?
No. An information request or a deletion application should not be taken to suspend time limits against other acts automatically.
Sources
- Expropriation Law No. 2942: Articles 7, 10, 27 and 31/b.
- Court of Cassation 5th Civil Chamber, E.2025/3053, K.2025/10831, July 9, 2025: accessible full transcription of the decision.
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100: Articles 12, 114, 326, 331, 350 and 367.
Legislation and sources last checked: October 15, 2026.