T.C SUPREME COURT 20.Legal Department, Base: 2019/ 4916 Decision: 2020 / 823 Decision Date: 18.02.2020
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
COURT : Cadastral Court
At the end of the trial of the case between the parties, a trial examination of the established provision by the Supreme Court is conducted by the united plaintiffs … and … the decoy Av. … upon request by the appellant, upon notification made for the appointed day 02/04/2019, the appellant plaintiffs … and … their attorney Av….they have arrived, on the other hand, the plaintiff is the deputy Treasury minister. … he came, no one else came, the open hearing was started. After the decision was made to accept the appeals, which were understood to be in due course, the oral statements of the arrivals were listened to, and the hearing was reported to be over. The matter has been decided. Then all the documents in the file were examined and considered as necessary:
During the cadastre … 223 islands in the town 4, 15, 17, 19, 35, 40 and immovables numbered 44 parcels and immovables numbered 225 island 6 parcels and immovables numbered 227 island 9 parcels are of field nature and
due to the existence of a lucrative statute of limitations, the defendant; 227 islands and 10 parcels have been identified with ½ share … and … in his name
Plaintiff Treasury filed a lawsuit on 223 island 4, 17, 19, 35, 40 and 44; 225 island 6 and 227 island 9 and 10 parcels claiming that there were no acquisition conditions on the real estate, canceling the determination and requesting that the registration and registration of the title deed on behalf of the Treasury be decided.
In the consolidated file, the plaintiff requested the registration of parcels 223 ada 15, 17 and 19 and parcel 227 ada 9 in his name.
18 of the Law No. 3402 on real estate subject to litigation with the rejection of the appeal by the court. in accordance with article 2013/10568 – 2014/6766 E of our Department, registration and registration of the title deed on behalf of the Treasury was decided, the decision was appealed by the plaintiff …K. according to its numbered decision, “The research and judgment made by the court are not sufficient.
1) Cases of objection to cadastral registration are opened by showing the opponent to the owners of the registration. 227 island 10 parcels of disputed real estate have been identified … and … in their name, and a lawsuit has been filed only … with hostility, and the other identified owner … has been included in the case and a provision has been made about 227 island 10 parcels without providing a party organization,
2) From the scope of the file, it is understood that the real estate numbered 223, 35 and 40 parcels, the minutes of which are not in the file, is also the defendant in the court’s file numbered 2011/81. It is not considered that all cases filed against the same parcel should be considered together and concluded so that conflicting decisions are not made and that there is no hesitation in the execution,
3) In the merged file … 223 island 15, 17, 19 parcels and 227 island 9 parcels for which he filed a lawsuit by directing hostility to ve …, the file in hand is not shown in the decision title … and the persons who manage the hostility are not shown in the decision title … no decision has been made in terms of the ’s case possible,
4) In paragraph 1 of the decision created by the court, it was said to reject the appeal, it was not clearly stated which plaintiff’s appeal was rejected, and in this case, which was filed as an appeal against cadastral determination, the provision should be established in the form of rejection of the case against cadastral determination, as well as the rejection of the appeal, although it was also called rejection of the appeal, the cancellation of the cadastral determination of real estate without specifying the breed and nature of Law 3402 18. in accordance with the article, the decision to register it on behalf of the Treasury is contrary to the procedure and law and is the reason for the violation.” it was decided to violate the provision by referring to the need.
The plaintiff …, for the real estate numbered 223 ada 35 and 40 parcels and for the real estate numbered 225 ada 6 parcels
he filed a lawsuit on the basis of the statute of limitations, the refusal of the appeal at the end of the trial by the court, 225 island 6 parcels, 223 island 35 parcels, 223 island 40 parcels in terms of real estate, Cadastral Code No. 3402 14/1. it is understood that there are no necessary conditions in accordance with Article 18 of the Law No. 3402 on the cancellation of cadastral determinations of real estate, although it is understood that there are no necessary conditions in accordance with Article 3402. in accordance with Article 16 of the Court of Cassation on appeal of the judgment, registration and registration of the title deed on behalf of the Treasury was decided. 2014/20280 – 2015/8907 E of the Legal Department.K. according to its decision No. 18 of the Law No. 3402, “The immovable property subject to litigation by the court has not been owned for the last 20 years. according to Article 14. although the provision has been established in writing on the grounds that the immovable property that is outside the provisions of the article and is subject to registration will be determined on behalf of the Treasury, the assessment is not in accordance with the scope of the file.
223 island 35 and 40 parcel real estate the subject of the case is the Treasury’s 225 island 6 parcel real estate, the Cadastral Court’s case file No. 2011/10 is also the defendant due to the lawsuit filed by the defendant, the Court decided to dismiss the Treasury’s case, accept the Treasury’s case, the Court of Cassation on the plaintiff’s appeal 20. As a result of the examination conducted by the Legal Department, the provision was overturned on the grounds that ”immovable property numbered 223, 35 and 40 parcels, the original minutes of which are not in the file, is also the defendant in the court’s 2011/81 file, and all cases filed for the same parcel must be considered and concluded together”. Although it was stated in the above dec. that the minutes of 223/35 parcels were not among the files; The original of the minutes of this real estate is in the case file numbered 2011/81, 20. The originals of the minutes, which are not included in the file subject to the deconstruction of the Law Office, belong to parcels 223 ada 40 and 225 ada 6. As such, 223 ada 35, 40 and 225 ada 6 parcels real estate, which are the subject of litigation and appeal in the file No. 2011/8, are the defendant in the case file No. 2011/10, new 2014/42, and all the cases that are related to the same real estate must be considered by combining. It is inappropriate for the court to ignore this issue and decide in writing, and appeals are in place for the reasons described,”referring to the need to overturn the decision was decided.
It was decided to combine the cases in accordance with the decrees of the court to disrupt, during the trial … 223 ada 40 parcel No. 223 ada 49 parcel No. 19 parcel No. 223 ada 17 district of Turkoglu, which is the subject of the lawsuit, with the acceptance of the case filed by the plaintiff Treasury in the main file as a result of the trial, 223 ada 4 parcel, 223 ada 35 parcel, 223 ada 44 parcel, 223 ada 19 parcel No. 223 ada 17 parcel, 223 island 15 parcel, 223 island 40 parcel, 225 island 6 parcel and 227 island 9 parcel, With the revocation of the determination of the real estate cadastre parcel 227 No. 10 name the name of the Treasury in Forest immovable for the detection and registration of the role of combined Main-numbered file in 2011/12, the plaintiff’s case, the parcel name 15 quarter 223, 223 parcel name, 17, name, parcel 19 223, 227 denial of immovable property parcel No. 9 in terms of name, the file opened in the plaintiff’s combined 2015/71 Main numbered
that’s the case; waiver of parcel No. 289 quarter due to the terms of Kahramanmaraş province immovable Island … 12 denial of plaintiffs involved with and … …’s case, the name …223 parcel quarter, 35, 40 name parcel 223, 225 parcel of immovable property in terms of denial No. 6 name has been decided, the terms are combined by the plaintiffs name, 223, 15, 17, 19 and No. 9 227 parcel immovable properties name, combined by the plaintiff island 223 35, 40, and No. 225 parcel 6 parcel name immovable properties; internal name by the defendant appealed against the heir … 10 No. 227 parcel has been immovable, despite the memorandum dated 30/11/2018 with the decision of the appeal expenses can’t be paid, since the plaintiffs are combined and … ’s appeal, they decided deemed to have waived the combined decision was appealed by plaintiffs and dated … 30/11/2018 additional deputy in the period.
The case concerns an appeal against cadastral determination.
The forest cadastre and Article 2 / B applications made in accordance with the Law No. 6831 in the region were completed in 1991. there are correction works carried out in accordance with Law No. 4999, which was finalized on 03/06/2011.
It is understood in advance that resides in the file dairemizce an inspection cost and sufficient, but the plaintiffs in violation of the law combined procedures and … and …’s appeal is the decision dated 30/11/2018 deemed to have waived that they are given by the court decided the abolition of additional files and attachments examined and duly noted;
Combined with the denial of the plaintiff involved in the original case by the court and the contentious role of the forest of immovable property registration if a decision is made on behalf of the Treasury, dated the oldest of the immovable condition detected by the aerial photos and a map of the country from 20 years ago in aerial photographs from the date of the state and the forest that are suitable for controlling unexamined konumlarri restriction according to plaintiffs ‘ based on a bill of sale and other documents are not duly implemented, although the plaintiff Treasury did not have a case against the disputed immovable property No. 223/ 15 parcel, it was decided to register the immovable property on behalf of the Treasury as forest property, and the proxy fee was assessed in favor of the plaintiff Treasury without taking into account Article 36 /A of Law No. 3402. A provision based on incomplete research and examination cannot be established.