Leaving an expropriated property unused for a long time may give the former owner or the heirs a right to take it back. However, not every unused property returns to its former owner automatically. The return upon the administration’s notice under Article 22 of Expropriation Law No. 2942 and the owner’s right of reacquisition under Article 23 are subject to different conditions. The date from which the period runs, whether the property has been used for a public purpose and the refund of the price received must be examined together.
Heirs who inherited a plot expropriated years ago may find, in particular, that the title deed is now registered under another parcel number or that the property has been sold to a third party. In that case the first step is not to reach a conclusion from the present appearance of the land, but to combine the expropriation file with the current title deed and the current use of the property. This article explains the routes for reacquisition and return as of October 13, 2026.
What Happens If the Purpose of the Expropriation Later Ceases?
Expropriation is an interference with private ownership for the sake of the public interest. The fact that the property has been registered in the name of the administration and its price has been paid does not mean that its later use is wholly irrelevant for property rights. At the same time, the fact that the facility envisaged at the outset was never built is not, on its own, enough for a return. Allocation to another public need, the integrity of the project, the transactions carried out and special statutory provisions are all examined.
For example, a plot taken for a school that has been lawfully allocated to another public service is not the same as a plot held without being allocated to any public need in order to earn income. Public service also does not necessarily require a closed building. A park, an open-use area or a functional part of a project is assessed in light of both the factual and the legal situation. For the action to annul the expropriation decision itself, see the article Action to Annul an Expropriation Procedure.
The administration’s statement that “we will use it in the future” cannot in every case be accepted as sufficient. The nature of the project, the time that has passed, the concrete steps taken and the burden on the owner must be questioned. The Constitutional Court (AYM) decisions examined below show that this assessment cannot be reduced to formal records alone.
Return Under Article 22 and Reacquisition Under Article 23
| Subject | Article 22 of Law No. 2942 | Article 23 of Law No. 2942 |
|---|---|---|
| Basic situation | No further need to allocate the property to the expropriation purpose or to a public need, and the administration’s notice | Fulfilment of the conditions of non-use set out in the law during the five-year period |
| Important starting point | Service of the return notice | Finality of the expropriation price |
| Exercising the right | Payment within three months of the notice | Within one year from the date the right arises |
| Amount to be repaid | As a rule, the price received and statutory interest; there is an exception for special interest | The price received and statutory interest running from the date it was received |
| Additional condition | Five-year limit on implementation from the finality of the expropriation | Jointly expropriated properties and exceptions under special laws |
What must be done upon the administration’s return notice?
Under Article 22, if after the expropriation has become final there is no longer any need to allocate the property to the expropriation purpose or to another public need, the situation is announced to the former owner or heirs in accordance with the Notification Law (Tebligat Kanunu). Upon the notice, the expropriation price received, together with statutory interest running from the date it was received, must be paid within three months, and the property may then be taken back.
If the return takes place within one year after the expropriation and the price have become final, no interest is charged. This exception is not met in every case merely because the return request is written within one year; the condition the law uses for the return procedure must be taken into account. Moreover, Article 22 does not apply if five years have passed since the expropriation became final. For urgent expropriation and immediate taking of possession, the position is discussed in the article Urgent Expropriation and Immediate Taking of Possession.
The law provides that former owners or heirs who do not accept the taking back under this article also lose their rights under Article 23. The effect of leaving the notice unanswered should therefore not be underestimated. The procedure of the notice, the parcel or share it covers, the price calculated and the method of payment should be reviewed in time. Filing a letter of acceptance alone does not mean that the payment condition has been met.
If another public body wants to use the property
Where another public body requests the property for a public service it could achieve by expropriation, the special transfer provision in Article 22 comes into play. In that case, whether the return mechanism applies to the former owner is assessed through the inter-agency transfer and allocation documents. There must be a link between the public service stated on paper and the actual use of the property.
Conditions for the Right of Reacquisition Under Article 23
Article 23 governs the situation in which, within five years from the finality of the expropriation price, the property is not subjected to the transactions and facilities in line with the purpose of the expropriation or transfer, and is left as it is without being allocated to a public need. Once the statutory conditions are met, the former owner or heirs may take the property back by repaying the price with statutory interest.
Here the five-year period is the period examined for the right to arise. If the right is not exercised within one year after it has arisen, the right lapses. These two periods are not alternatives running from the same starting point. It should not be assumed that correspondence with the administration or oral discussions will stop the preclusive period; where necessary, the action must be brought within the limitation period.
The law also provides that after the periods have passed, former owners or heirs may not claim any right, price or compensation from the administration. This provision must be assessed together with the historical legislation in the file and the constitutional guarantees of property. The existence of individual application decisions cannot be read as giving unlimited and renewed rights of action for all claims whose time has expired.
Which documents are needed to calculate the period?
The expropriation decision, the registration of the title, the payment of the price and the finality of the price may not all take place on the same day. If the price litigation has gone to appeal, the certificate of finality is especially important. The starting point of the five-year period should not be determined merely by looking at a bank receipt.
In a preliminary review, the case numbers of the expropriation and price files, the dates of the decisions and of their service, the results of any appeal, the record of finality and the payment documents should be placed side by side. The fact that heirs learned of the property years later does not start the period from the date they discovered it. For this reason, the inheritance inquiry and the inquiry into the periods should be carried out at the same time.
How Is It Proven That the Property Has Remained Empty?
A photograph taken today does not on its own show what was done during the five-year period. The investigation covers which project the administration prepared and when, whether it carried out tendering or construction activity, whether the property was allocated to another public need and how the property was actually used. Whether a few exchanges of correspondence count as a real implementation step also depends on the circumstances of the case. For land that was physically seized without any expropriation, see the article De Facto Expropriation Without Formal Expropriation.
The following documents are useful for review:
- The original expropriation decision, the decision of public interest and the approved project.
- Chronological zoning plans, allocation and use decisions.
- Construction tenders, contracts, site handover and acceptance records.
- Old and new aerial photographs, dated images and on-site examination findings.
- Sale or transfer decisions and title deed transaction documents.
- Subdivision, consolidation and parcelling records showing cadastral changes.
Collecting the documents is not sufficient on its own. Each document must be linked to the relevant five-year period and to the area whose reacquisition is sought. Whether a facility on a neighboring parcel shows that the disputed parcel was allocated to a public service must be explained technically.
Integrity of the Project for Properties Expropriated Together
Article 23 provides that where several properties are expropriated together for the same purpose, the assessment is made on the basis of their integrity. For this reason, in a large hospital, transport or housing project, no conclusion is drawn merely because one parcel is empty. It is examined whether the empty part serves the functioning of the project and how it relates to the whole area.
The integrity rule, however, does not mean that the administration may keep the remaining properties indefinitely by using a small part of the whole area. The size of the unused area, the time that has passed, the public service that has not materialized and subsequent sales are examined together. The focus of the legal debate is the connection between the real function of the project and the burden on the owner. Where only part of a property was taken, the position of the remaining part is discussed in the article Partial Expropriation: Loss of Value on the Remaining Part.
How Do Actual Constitutional Court Decisions Explain the Right of Reacquisition?
Ahmet Yazı: unused parcels in a mass housing project
In its decision of September 29, 2021, Application No. 2018/357, Ahmet Yazı, the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court examined a case in which part of properties expropriated for mass housing was not used for a public interest purpose for a long time and part was transferred to third parties. Applying the facts of the case, the Court assessed that the integrity of the project cannot justify, without limit, an interference with unused parts. It found a violation of property rights and ordered a retrial.
The decision does not mean that every mass housing expropriation is invalid, or that the Constitutional Court registers the property directly in the name of the former owner. Its significance in practice is that the status of unused parts cannot be excluded from review by invoking the project as a whole.
Kartal Surp Nişan Armenian Church School Foundation: separating correspondence from actual use
In its decision of January 18, 2022, Application No. 2019/4794, the Constitutional Court addressed the long-term non-use of properties expropriated for a road. Although there was correspondence with the conservation board, the Court examined the concrete situation of the road’s implementation and whether the property had been allocated to another public need. The Court found a violation of property rights and ordered a retrial. The foundation’s full name in Turkish is Kartal Surp Nişan Ermeni Kilisesi Mektebi Vakfı.
This decision cannot be read as meaning that every plot is returned once five years have passed. Alongside the statutory conditions, it shows that the existence of an actual public use must be assessed with reasons. The official record of both decisions and the accessible text links are listed in the sources.
Where and Against Whom Is the Reacquisition Action Brought?
Article 24 of Law No. 2942 provides that disputes arising from the application of Articles 21, 22, 23 and 24 are resolved by the ordinary courts. For an action seeking cancellation of title and registration of the property in the claimant’s name, the civil court of first instance and the rules on territorial jurisdiction for the place where the property is located must be considered. This action is different from an action to annul the original expropriation decision in the administrative courts.
In identifying the defendant, the body that carried out the expropriation, the current owner of the property and any transfers must be examined. If the title has passed to a third party, a claim directed only at the former administration may not be suitable for achieving the registration sought. The claim in rem, the option of compensation and the legal position of the parties must be assessed together.
Where there is a concrete risk that the property will be transferred again, appropriate protection may be requested within the interim injunction provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK). An injunction is not granted automatically; a connection must be shown between the protection requested, the right of action and the existing danger. The stay of execution in administrative courts and the interim injunction in the civil courts must not be confused with each other.
The Price to Be Repaid and Changes to the Property
Reacquisition is, as a rule, not a return without payment. The expropriation price and the interest obligation stated in the law must be taken into account. Where there are several payments or receipts on different dates, the calculation must be broken down for each payment. Statutory interest is calculated on the basis of the legislation applicable to each period; today’s single rate is not applied directly to the whole past. A comparison may also be made with the article Determination of the Expropriation Price and Action for Registration, which shows in detail how the price is determined.
Article 23 is of particular importance where buildings, fixed installations and growing crops and plantings on the expropriated property have been demolished, removed or have fallen into ruin. The former owner or heir may ask that the difference be deducted from the price to be repaid, measured by the value at the date of the expropriation. This requires proof of the former condition and of the change; the current cost cannot be offset without any examination.
There are also cases in which the right of reacquisition does not apply under special laws. The special regime on which the expropriation is based, including the exceptions in the last paragraph of Article 23, must be determined. It is equally wrong to treat every area acquired by surrender to the public, gift or a land-readjustment partnership share (düzenleme ortaklık payı) as if it were an expropriated property.
Conclusion
The right to reacquire expropriated property can be used by examining together the dates of finality, the history of use and the refund of the price. The periods under Articles 22 and 23 must be kept separate; the appearance of empty land, the integrity of the project and administrative correspondence should not be treated as decisive on their own. A case prepared with the actual title history and documents on use over each period allows review both of the statutory conditions and of the interference with property rights.
Related articles: Energy and Pipeline Easement Compensation and Litigation Rights; Objection to a Risky Building Determination and Action for Annulment; Objection to a Demolition Order and Action for Annulment
Frequently Asked Questions
Does an expropriated plot return automatically if it stays empty for five years?
No. The finality of the price, the conditions of non-use set out in the law, allocation to a public purpose and statutory exceptions are examined. The title deed does not change by itself.
Does the five-year period start from the expropriation decision?
Under Article 23 the starting point is the finality of the expropriation price. For the five-year implementation limit in Article 22, the finality of the expropriation is the reference point.
Can heirs exercise the right of reacquisition?
The law also covers the heirs of the former owner. Their status as heirs, their share and whether the right was exercised within the time limit must be examined separately. Learning of the inheritance later does not create a new period.
Does filing a petition with the administration stop the one-year period?
It should not be assumed that a preclusive period is preserved merely because of a petition or a meeting. Depending on the nature of the request, the action must be brought within the necessary limitation period.
Does a Constitutional Court violation decision directly mean return of the title deed?
No. In the decisions examined, the Court ordered a retrial as the means of remedying the violation. The specific claim in the dispute and the method of redress are assessed separately.
Sources and legal bases
- Expropriation Law No. 2942 (Kamulaştırma Kanunu), especially Articles 21–24.
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), provisions on subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction in actions concerning immovable property, and interim injunctions.
- Law No. 3095 on Statutory Interest and Default Interest (Kanuni Faiz ve Temerrüt Faizine İlişkin Kanun), periodic calculation of statutory interest.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Ahmet Yazı [GK], September 29, 2021, Application No. 2018/357: official decision record.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Kartal Surp Nişan Armenian Church School Foundation, January 18, 2022, Application No. 2019/4794: official decision record.
- Accessible decision compilation containing the full texts of the decisions above. The decisions were examined separately by application number and decision date.