In partial expropriation the administration acquires only a part of the property, but the economic effect may not be limited to the area taken. A field cut off from its road, a plot narrowed so that it can no longer be built on, or a garden whose irrigation has been broken may lose value even if the remaining area is large. The price of the part taken, the loss of value on the remaining part and the right to demand that the remaining part also be acquired are subject to different conditions.
This article explains that distinction and the technical review it requires, based on Article 12 of Expropriation Law No. 2942. The legal research date is 14 October 2026. The effect of an easement (irtifak hakkı) on the property is also addressed to the extent relevant.
What Is Partial Expropriation?
Partial expropriation is the acquisition, for a public service, of a specific part of a property. Examples include a road alignment running across a field in a strip, the taking of a corner of a plot for a junction, or a public facility occupying part of a parcel. After the acquisition, whether the remaining part is in one piece or in several pieces affects the review.
In easement expropriation, by contrast, specific rights of use or restrictions are created without the whole of the ownership being taken. In applications such as pipelines and energy transmission lines, compensation is assessed on the basis of the decrease in value that the easement causes across the property as a whole. Multiplying the easement area by the full-ownership unit price is not the correct method in every case. [1]
At the start of the file it should be clear what the administration is acquiring: ownership, an easement or temporary use? If the expropriation plan and the scope of the right to be entered in the land register do not match, the valuation may also be set up incorrectly.
The Price of the Part Taken and the Loss on the Remaining Part Are Calculated Separately
Article 12 of the Law provides for three basic situations, depending on how the remaining part is affected. If its value is unchanged, the price of the part taken is the basis. If its value falls, the decrease is added to the price. If its value rises, the increase is deducted from the price; however, this deduction may not exceed 50 percent of the expropriation price of the part taken. [1] Where a price is claimed for a taking carried out without any expropriation decision, see the article Actions for De Facto Expropriation Without Formal Expropriation.
The 50 percent limit does not mean that the loss of value on the remaining part may be at most 50 percent. Nor should it be confused with the rules on objective increases in value. The report should clearly state the calculation item to which the statutory limit has been applied.
| Condition of the remaining part | Effect on the calculation | Matter to investigate |
|---|---|---|
| Value unchanged | Price of the part taken | Continuation of use before and after the acquisition |
| Value reduced | The amount of the decrease is added | Access, shape, buildability, agricultural and operational integrity |
| Value increased | Deduction within the statutory limit | Reality of the increase, causation, and no double counting of the same benefit |
| Rendered unfit for use | Full acquisition may be requested under the separate conditions of Article 12 | Usability, application period and the condition for an administrative action for annulment |
Illustrative calculation example
Only to show the method, assume that the price of the part taken is 1,000,000 TL and that a loss of value of 250,000 TL on the remaining part caused by the expropriation has been proven. If there is no duplicated item, the two elements together come to 1,250,000 TL. Conversely, assume that a value increase of 700,000 TL is found on the remaining part. Because of the limit in Article 12, a deduction of at most 500,000 TL may be made from the price of the part taken. These figures are not an actual file or a comparable price; interest, other rights and other items are assessed separately.
In What Circumstances Does a Loss of Value on the Remaining Part Arise?
Breakdown of the road and access connection
The fact that an area remains on the title deed does not show that the area can be reached legally or in practice. The part on the far side of a road, a section enclosed by a stream or ditch, and a narrow connection that agricultural machinery cannot pass should each be examined. A neighbor’s occasional permission to cross is not continuing access that is legally secured.
The expert should explain whether the alternative route it proposes is actually usable. The width of the road, its gradient, the passage of heavy vehicles, the legal status of any right of way and the cost of a new connection should be investigated. A route shown as a line on a map may not be a workable road on the ground.
Shape of the parcel and building potential
Narrowing of the plot, a reduction in frontage or the effect of setback distances may reduce the usable building area. If the remaining area no longer meets the minimum conditions set by the zoning plan, its economic consequence should be assessed. The existing permit, plan notes, subdivision conditions and the municipality’s written opinion are considered together. For the effect of a plan amendment on building potential, see also the article Objection to and Annulment of a Zoning Plan Amendment.
A building right that did not exist before the expropriation cannot be calculated as if it had been lost afterwards. On the other hand, an existing right that can no longer actually be used cannot be disregarded merely because “area remains” in the land register. The connection between the loss of value and the expropriation must be shown.
Impairment of agricultural and operational integrity
Dividing a garden in two may increase the costs of irrigation, harvesting, labor and machinery use. In a livestock enterprise, the loss of the connection between the sheepfold, storage and pasture, and in a commercial facility, the loss of a service entrance or loading area, may also create economic effects. These effects must be explained not only by general complaints but by data on the current and legally possible use of the operation.
The same loss should not be counted again as a decrease in land value, a continuing loss of income and under another heading. The technical report should be able to show which result is reflected in which element of value. A hypothetical future investment expectation should be separated from the concrete features that affect the current value of the property.
Costs of Reorganizing Walls, Channels and Installations
Article 12 of the Law separately addresses the costs of alteration and reorganization needed so that structures, walls, channels, and water or electricity installations can continue to be used in their former condition. If use of the remaining part can continue, the amount and cost of the necessary adaptation should be determined technically. [1]
For example, reconnecting an irrigation line cut by a road, or relocating an entrance, may be possible. The expert should explain the feasible solution, the permits it requires and its cost. Saying only that “reorganization can be carried out” is not sufficient. On the other hand, there should be no double counting between the loss that continues after improvement and the cost item.
Whether the administration’s plans for an underpass, service road or irrigation connection will in fact be carried out should also be verifiable. A promise that has not been finalized or legally secured should not be treated as if the loss did not exist. The approved scope of the project, its feasibility and its concrete benefit to the property should be examined.
Can Full Acquisition of the Remaining Part Be Requested?
A loss of value and becoming unfit for use are different
Not every decrease in value makes it mandatory for the administration to acquire the whole of the remaining part. The special route in Article 12 depends on the remaining part being unfit for use. This assessment looks not only at the owner’s present preference but at the physical and legal possibilities for using the property.
A field that has shrunk but still has access and continues to be used is not the same as a narrow strip with no connection left. A request for full acquisition should specify why a monetary loss alone is not enough. The technical report should explain the dimensions of the remaining part, its access and the feasible options for its use.
The thirty-day application and the requirement of no administrative action must be examined together
Under Article 12, where the remaining part of a partially expropriated property is unfit for use, that part must also be acquired upon a written application made within 30 days from notification of the expropriation decision, in cases where no administrative action has been brought against the expropriation act. The condition “in cases where no administrative action has been brought” in the Law must not be overlooked. [1]
This period is different from the two-week period for objecting to the expert report and from the timetable of a price action brought by the administration. It is useful to attach parcel information, a sketch of the remaining area and records showing why it cannot be used. The date and content of the application should be kept in a form that can be proved.
If the owner is considering both the annulment of the expropriation and the acquisition of the remaining part by the administration, the relationship between these two options under Article 12 should be examined first. It cannot be said that both routes can run at the same time with the same outcome where the statutory conditions are not met. The course of action and the time limit that follow a rejection of the application, or its being left unanswered, also depend on the type of act and are assessed separately.
Properties around dams are subject to a special regulation
Article 12 also contains a separate application and assessment procedure where the construction of a dam has economic or social effects on the surroundings. Special conditions, such as a one-year period running from the date the notice of completion of the expropriation was posted, and an application to the provincial governorship commission being a condition for suit, should not be confused with the general partial expropriation application. It cannot be concluded that every property near a dam will automatically be acquired. [1]
Constitutional Court Decision: Access to the Remaining Part Cannot Be Passed Over
In its decision of 30 March 2023 in the case of Serap Ustaalioğlu, Application No. 2020/3011, the AYM examined the effect on the remaining part of an expropriation for a pipeline. Although the technical reports contained assessments of transport and use problems, those problems were not sufficiently resolved in the proceedings. The court found a violation of the right to property and ordered a retrial. [2]
The decision does not say that a pipeline causes a given percentage of loss on the remaining land in every case. The AYM did not set a loss-of-value rate for all files. Where access and a contradiction between reports affect the outcome, they must be assessed with reasons. The general assumption that there can be no loss because the pipe runs underground does not resolve a concrete technical problem.
In applying this decision to a file, the contradiction in the report should be shown clearly: which part has become inaccessible, whether the proposed route is actually usable, and how the water channel or stream will be crossed. Rather than simply naming the decision, it is necessary to document the similar technical problem affecting the property.
Which Questions Should the Expert Report Answer?
The valuation should establish a verifiable comparison between the whole property before the expropriation and the remaining part after it. In an action under Article 10, the valuation date is determined under Article 15. The effect of a separate later event should not be added to the calculation as if it were a result of the expropriation. Similar losses in line crossings are discussed in the article Energy Transmission Line and Pipeline Expropriation.
- Are the areas of the part taken and the remaining part consistent with the expropriation plan?
- Does each remaining piece have a legal and a practical connection to a road?
- How have zoning, frontage, setback distances or agricultural use conditions changed?
- With what data is the rate of loss of value justified?
- Have the necessary costs of facility reorganization, and the loss that persists despite them, been separated?
- Does the claimed increase in value actually reflect on the remaining part?
- Have the effects of acquiring ownership and of an easement been kept distinct?
Time limit and technical reasoning for objecting to the report
Under Article 281 of the Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (HMK), the period for objecting to an expert report is two weeks from notification. Under the conditions set by the Law, an application may be made within that period for a single additional period of up to two weeks. The additional period is not automatic. Expert opinion under HMK Article 293 may be used to clarify the measurement and calculation problem. [3]
In an objection, rather than only asking for a higher rate, state which fact the report has omitted. If the access inspection is incomplete, a new site inspection may be requested; if the zoning conditions are unclear, the municipal records; if the income calculation is disputed, local agricultural data. The judge evaluates the report together with the other evidence; preferring a report without explaining the technical contradiction makes judicial review more difficult.
Conclusion
In partial expropriation, a fair price is not merely the price per square metre of the part taken. Access, use, shape and the economic integrity of the remaining part must be examined separately. If full acquisition is requested, the conditions of Article 12 (unfitness for use, a written application, the 30-day period and the absence of an action for annulment) should be assessed from the outset. A timely application supported by technical documents is the foundation of the correct legal route.
Related articles: Determination of Expropriation Compensation, Expert Objection and Interest; Action to Annul an Expropriation Procedure; Urgent Expropriation and Early Taking of Possession
Frequently Asked Questions
A small part of my plot was taken for a road. Can I claim compensation for the remaining part?
If a loss of value on the remaining part caused by the expropriation is proven, that loss may be added to the price under Article 12. The fact that the area taken is small does not remove the need for a review.
Is the upper limit of the loss of value on the remaining part 50 percent?
No. The 50 percent limit in Article 12 relates to the deduction, from the price of the part taken, for a value increase on the remaining part.
If the remaining area cannot be used, must the administration take all of it?
If the conditions of Article 12 are met, this obligation may arise. In particular, the conditions of no administrative action for annulment and a written application within 30 days of notification of the decision should be examined.
Does being able to cross my neighbor’s field show that the access problem has been solved?
Not always. Whether the crossing is legally secured, and whether it is suitable for the use of the property, should be examined.
Because a pipeline is underground, does no loss of value arise at all?
No general rule can be established. The scope of the easement, any restriction on use, access and the technical effects should be examined on the concrete property.
Sources and legal bases
[1] Expropriation Law No. 2942 (Kamulaştırma Kanunu), especially Articles 11, 12 and 15.
[2] AYM, Serap Ustaalioğlu, Application No. 2020/3011, 30 March 2023 — official decision record. Accessible full-text publication.
[3] Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), especially Articles 281, 282 and 293.