Not every action for cancellation of title brought in the name of the Treasury is subject to the same rules. The dispute may concern a property privately owned by the Treasury, a place under the sovereign authority and disposal of the State, or public common property such as a pasture or a road. This distinction is decisive for acquisition by possession, reliance on the land registry, the time limit for bringing the action and the way in which the decision is implemented in the registry.
From the owner’s side, the first question should not be only “How old is my title?” The legal act by which the title was created, what the property was before, whether a cadastral record was actually drawn up and the document on which the public-property claim rests should be investigated together. An old title deed is an important piece of evidence, but on its own it does not remove a public-property claim. A claim raised by a public body is not confirmed simply because it was made. 123
The difference between Treasury private property and public property (kamu malı)
Not every place registered in the name of the Treasury is closed to private ownership
The Treasury may be the owner of property suitable for private ownership. Such property is not governed by the same regime as property allocated to a public service or which, by its nature, falls outside private ownership. The fact that the Treasury is named as owner in the land registry alone does not tell us whether the property can be sold or whether ownership can pass to another person. The remedies against an administrative claim for ecrimisil are discussed separately in the article Objection to an Ecrimisil Notice.
Where the dispute concerns a Treasury property acquired through a private-law transaction, the validity of that transaction and the rules protecting reliance on the land registry are examined on their own terms. On the other hand, the mere fact that genuine public common property was wrongly registered in a private person’s name does not make that place suitable for private ownership, merely because of how it appears in the registry. 12 A separate analysis of this subject appears in the article Possession and Acquisitive Prescription as a Basis for Title Registration.
Pastures, roads and coastal areas require different documents
Article 16 of the Cadastre Law No. 3402 classifies public property. For common public property such as pastures, plateau pastures and winter pastures, delimitation and the special register are significant; for places such as roads, the relevant special designation and registration regime matters. The outcome of the case should not in every instance be a “normal title in the name of the Treasury”. The registration sought must be set up in line with the true legal nature of the property. 2
For a pasture claim, allocation records, the special pasture register, customary use and commission documents are examined; for a road claim, cadastral and road documents; and for the coast, natural boundary and coastal survey sheets. Cancellation of title for land on the coast and forest and 2/B disputes are therefore addressed in separate articles. As a separate guide, the article Title Registration Based on an Allocation Document is also useful.
| Legal status of the property | Basic document to examine | Assumption to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Place in the Treasury’s private ownership | Title basis and acquisition transaction | If there is a Treasury record, no private-law right can arise |
| Pasture or other public common property | Special register, allocation, customary use | If the municipality sold it, its public-property status has definitely ended |
| Road or area reserved for a service | Cadastre, plan, allocation and chain of transactions | A road appearing on the map solves every problem on its own |
| Place left outside the cadastral survey | Reason for exclusion from the survey and old record | Once a survey is carried out in the area, a ten-year period starts for every place |
| Public registry record overlapping a private title | Application of the old title to the ground | A public registry record or a private title alone provides decisive priority |
Which evidence should be gathered against a Treasury action?
Title chain and the original formation document
Reliance on the current title deed alone is not enough. The cadastral record, the judgment on which the registration rests, official deeds, earlier land registry records, subdivision and consolidation documents, and municipal or Treasury transfer files should be reviewed together. Parcel numbers that later changed in the registry chain should be matched with the earlier numbers.
Old title boundaries were often not written in today’s coordinate system. Records describing a property by reference to a stream, a hill, a road or a neighbour must be applied to the ground. The relationship between the area stated in the record and the boundary description, whether the scope has been expanded, and the records of neighbouring parcels become subjects of technical examination. The existence of an archive document and whether it actually covers the disputed parcel are different questions of proof.
The basis for the public-property character
If a place is claimed to be a pasture, earlier final court decisions, allocation plans, old aerial photographs and local information on use may be examined alongside the commission decision. Witnesses may explain the history of use, but general statements cannot replace a special register or a technical boundary examination.
Paying ecrimisil, paying taxes, having an electricity subscription or farming the land for a long time does not by itself show that ownership has arisen. In particular, ecrimisil should not be confused with the conversion of use into acquisition of ownership by law. For acquisition by possession, the property must first be capable of being acquired in that way. 123
If a pasture was bought from a municipality, is the title protected?
Article 4 of the Law No. 4342 on Pastures (Mera Kanunu) provides that pastures cannot be transferred into private ownership and cannot be acquired through prescription. Statutory procedures exist for changing the allocated purpose. Therefore, when a municipal sale is seen, the first check is whether the pasture status was lawfully changed by that date; a sale decision and a payment receipt alone may not be enough. 3
In the decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi) dated 21 November 2024, E.2024/3847, K.2024/5164, the registration in the municipality’s name and the subsequent sale of a property whose pasture status had been determined by an earlier final decision were examined. In view of the property’s public character, long-term use and limitation defences did not secure the protection of the title, and the judgment granting the claim was affirmed. 4
The limit of this decision matters. It does not say that good faith will never be considered in a dispute in which the Treasury is a party. The outcome depends on the pasture status in the file and on the chain of transactions. A wrongful registration of Treasury property suitable for private ownership and the erroneous registration of public common property are not the same event.
For the buyer, the invalidity of the sale, the return of the sale price or other damage claims may arise separately. Unless it is established to whom the price was paid and which transaction caused the loss, not every claim should be directed only at the Treasury. For damage arising from the keeping of the registry, Article 1007 of the Turkish Civil Code applies; for the seller’s liability, the relevant obligation relationship is assessed on its own terms. 1 For details, the article Third-Party Good Faith in a Title Acquired from a Developer may be consulted.
Does the five-year period in a pasture allocation bar all ownership actions?
Article 13 of the Law on Pastures (Mera Kanunu) sets out the announcement and objection procedure for commission work; Article 21 sets out a five-year period for the rights stated in allocation decisions. These provisions should not be read as meaning that every ownership claim based on an old title expires within the same period. It must be distinguished whether the claim is based on the allocation right or on the assertion that the property has been in private ownership from the outset. 3
In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) dated 20 May 2026, E.2025/602, K.2026/348, the later registration and allocation as a pasture of an area left outside the cadastral survey were examined. The claimant relied on an old title deed. The majority of the Assembly did not find correct the dismissal of the action by applying the five-year allocation period to this ownership claim. Because no cadastral record had been drawn up for the property, it also held that the ten-year period in Article 12/3 of Law No. 3402 could not be applied, and it quashed the ruling on resistance (direnme hükmü). 5
The decision does not mean that the claimant’s ownership has been definitively accepted. The merits of the claims and defences must be examined. Whether the old title actually covers the parcel, and the other evidence of the parties, remain important. The concrete contribution of the decision is to show that examining the merits and proving ownership are different stages, and that a claim dismissed on time-limit grounds before its merits are reached does not settle ownership.
When does the ten-year cadastral period become relevant?
Article 12/3 of Law No. 3402 limits objections and actions based on legal grounds predating the cadastral survey, once ten years have passed from the finality of the cadastral records. For the period to be discussed, the cadastral procedure concerning the specific property, the date it became final and the date on which the claimed right arose must be identified. The fact that a survey has been carried out in the area does not by itself start the period for every area left outside the survey. 25
Because of the character of public property, special statutes and related constitutional considerations, it should also not be assumed that this provision alone applies in every file. A pasture finalised as such that was later sold by a municipality is different from an area based on an old title that was left outside the cadastral survey. That the two decisions above reached different results shows the importance of this distinction.
In practice, a chronology should be prepared: the first title, the cadastral survey, finality, public allocation, any change of status, the sale and the filing dates. When the legal consequence of each event is written on a separate line, a calculation of the period based only on the age of the title can be avoided. For details, see the article Objection to a Cadastral Determination and Title Cancellation.
In which court, and against whom, is the action brought?
An action for cancellation and registration of title is, as a rule, heard by the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) in the place where the property is located. A pending cadastral proceeding, the special rules on jurisdiction for the pasture commission’s decisions, and claims seeking direct judicial review of an administrative act must also be examined separately. Calling the claim a “title cancellation” in the petition does not by itself resolve the question of subject-matter jurisdiction. 236
The current registered owner, the Treasury, the relevant village or municipal legal entity and any other parties indicated by special regulation are assessed according to the type of dispute. Rather than naming all the institutions as defendants as a precaution, the claim and the legal basis directed at each should be explained. Depending on the relief sought, the correct choice must be made between normal registration, deletion of the entry (terkin), registration in the special pasture register, or partial annulment of the commission decision. This question is discussed separately in the article Proceedings after a Title Cancellation and Registration Decision Becomes Final.
Conclusion
In actions based on Treasury and public-property claims, the decisive work is to establish the legal nature of the property and the chain of its registry entries correctly. In public common property such as a pasture, long use and a sale record alone do not provide ownership. On the other hand, a claim based on an old title cannot be dismissed automatically on the basis of allocation or cadastral time limits without examining the nature of the dispute. The time limit, ownership and any price claims should be assessed on separate grounds.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the Treasury have my title cancelled without good reason?
No. The legal and technical basis of the claim is examined in the proceedings. The owner’s records and defences are also reviewed; the fact that a public body is the claimant does not prove the claim on its own.
Can a pasture I have used for thirty years become mine?
Public common property that is genuinely a pasture by its legal nature cannot be acquired through possession. The legal nature of the property must be determined before the period of use is considered.
Why might a title I received from a municipality be cancelled?
If the property was not suitable for private ownership at the time of sale, or if the transaction is invalid, the registry entry can be disputed. The public-property character, any change of allocated purpose and the authority to sell are examined.
Does paying ecrimisil give rights to the title?
Not by itself. The conditions for payment in return for use and those for acquiring ownership are different. If there is a special sale or rights-holder arrangement, its conditions are examined separately.
When does the ten-year period start for an area outside the cadastral survey?
First it is examined whether a cadastral record exists. In the Civil General Assembly decision discussed above, it was accepted that the period in Article 12/3 cannot be applied to a property left outside the cadastral survey where no record was drawn up.
Can no action be brought after the five years following a pasture allocation?
It cannot be put so generally. A dispute over the allocation right is distinguished from an ownership claim based on an old title. The nature of the claim and the other time-limit provisions are examined together.
If the title is cancelled, from whom do I recover the money I paid?
The refund of the sale price, the loss arising from the registry and other compensation claims may be directed at different parties. The person who received the payment or the authority, and the transaction that caused the loss, must be identified.
Sources and legal bases
- Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, in particular Articles 715, 1007 and 1023–1024.
- Cadastre Law No. 3402, Articles 12, 16 and 18.
- Law No. 4342 on Pastures (Mera Kanunu), Articles 4, 13, 14 and 21.
- Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, 21 November 2024, E.2024/3847, K.2024/5164, official decision text.
- Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, 20 May 2026, E.2025/602, K.2026/348, full text PDF transfer. Secondary transfer; the five-page decision text was reviewed.
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, jurisdiction in matters of duty and immovable property actions.