T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
Date of Decision: 28.06.2016
REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION OF CADASTRAL DETERMINATIONS – IF THE CADASTRAL RECORD IS THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT, THE CASE FILE SHOULD BE TAKEN BETWEEN THE FILES AND A DECISION SHOULD BE MADE ACCORDINGLY ABOUT THE IMMOVABLE DEC – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
SUMMARY: Also, the plaintiff’s … dated discovery .. name .. a file in which he declares that he is not suing the parcel.. name .. the parcel record has not been brought, our return decisions and the original cadastral record have been requested by the land registry and related cadastral directorates … in the town of Beldesi, … in the neighborhood.. name .. if the parcel is reported as not having an immovable property with the parcel number, but in the submitted sketch.. name .. since it is understood that the parcel-numbered real estate has been seen, the court is in the place of the lawsuit.. name .. if there is a parcel, it should be duly investigated and if there is, the cadastral record is taken between the original decedent and the case file, while a decision should be made accordingly about the immovable property by the court, in the first paragraph of the judgment.. name .. it is also not appropriate to decide on the registration and registration of the title deed, as well as the determination of the numbered parcel. The decision had to be overturned.
(1086 P. K. m. 438)
Lawsuit: The Supreme Court’s examination of the provision established at the end of the hearing of the case between the parties was requested by the plaintiff … after the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, which is understood to be in the dec, the file was examined, the need was considered:
At the time of the cadastral survey, County, … …mah/dark, 122 No. 1 name in the parcel, with the tendency Bush as 1093,69 m2 of surface area, in the name of the name in raw 142 No. 16 6128,73 parcel of land with a surface area of M2 in the name attribute, the name in raw land parcel No. 17 2296,52 142 m2 of surface area and bush with the tendency in the name of the name 11.289 142 parcel No. 23,with a surface area of 50 m2 in the Bush and in the name of tendency raw land, parcel No. 142 as the name of the field with the attribute 2578,95 18 m2 of surface area on behalf of the defendant, Parcel No. 142 2671,77 20 m2 of surface area of the field, as the defendants from the case on behalf of the attribute and …, Parcel No. 142 37 m2 of surface area of the field with the Attribute name as the defendant, on behalf of 142 m2 of surface area of the field name with the attribute as parcel No. 24 9870,57 on behalf of the defendant, as parcel No. 142 9977,22 name attribute of the field with 25 m2 of surface area on behalf of the defendant, as parcel No. 26 142 m2 of surface area 14293,77 name attribute of the field on behalf of the defendant, as parcel No. 142 8342,59 name attribute of the field with 27 m2 of surface area on behalf of the defendant, 142 m2 of surface area of the field name with the attribute as parcel No. 28 8143,08 on behalf of the defendant … , 142 island 31 parcels numbered 14541.25 m2 with an area of field quality on behalf of the defendant …… and friends and 136 island 64 parcels numbered 8342.59 m2 with an area of field quality on behalf of the defendant … and friends were determined by a commission decision on behalf of the defendant.
The plaintiff … filed a lawsuit on the basis of the land registry with a petition dated 20/11/2008 requesting the cancellation of cadastral determinations of immovable properties and the determination and registration on his behalf based on the land registry. The decision to merge the merged file with this case was made in the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs …and their friends against parcels 142, 25 and 26 based on the land registry.
The court, as a result of the judgment, the denial of trial, 142 name 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 31, parcels of land recording and registration as identified 19 Island 1 and No. 122, 136 island numbered 37 and 64 for the parcels due to denial of the waiver of the trial, the parcels of land recording and registration as identified in the merged file, the denial of the plaintiff’s cause of, 145 parcels of land recording and registration as identified name the numbered 25 and 26, in the name in his neighbourhood 122 17, 18 and 20 numbered parcels decided it wasn’t the place to be decided due to the absence of, the verdict has been appealed by the plaintiff.
The case concerns an appeal to the cadastral registration.
4. Where there are contested real estate, the Law No. 3402 has been amended by the Law No. 5304. there is a land cadastral survey, which was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the article and announced between dec2/10/2008 and 21/11/2008.
1) The plaintiff…’s contentious 142 island 16,17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31 and from the point of view of appeals for parcels No. 122 and No. 1;
As a result of the discovery made and expert reports received, the plaintiff’s land title records do not match the disputed real estate, the defendant’s property is located on real estate numbered 142 islands 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 31 parcels, and there is no property on real estate numbered 122 islands 1, 142 islands 16, 17 and 23 parcels, and it has been determined that there is no bush and raw land and in written form since there is no impropriety in the establishment of the provision, with the rejection of appeals that were not considered on the spot, the provision that was in accordance with the procedure and the law had to be upheld.
2) Although the real estate subject to litigation in the merged file already has parcels 142, 25 and 26 that are the defendant in the main file, the island number of the parcels should be written as “142” in the decision made by the court in terms of the merged file, the number “145” based on a material error was not considered correct, and since the cadastral court judge has an obligation to create the correct register, the provision is 3. it was necessary to correct the phrase “142 islands” by removing the phrase “145 islands” located in the bend and replacing it with the phrase “142 islands”.
3) As for the plaintiff …’s contentious appeals against the real estate of 142 islands 18, 20 and 37 parcels;
The research and examination conducted by the court is not sufficient to rule. …The plaintiff’s petition is contentious as immovable property immovable property parcel number 18 and 20 and 136 122 37 sued by typing name of the island, the discovery is made after the plaintiff in the petition dated 01/12/2010 offered by money order, these parcels incorrectly, write the name of the numbers, however, the number of parcels that is actually the name of 142 numbered 18 and 20, in the petition of Appeal, Plot No. 37 name due to the inaccuracy in the position 136 to surrender, and the number of numbered square 142 142 37 really name the name again and did not waiver from the plots reported that the 37 numbered, however, the court in terms of the number by name, 18 and 20 of 122 plots plots in the island numbered numbered 18 and 20 to be decided on the grounds of the absence in the place, it wasn’t waive the terms of 136 island is located on the grounds of 37 numbered parcels where the decision is made where the grounds for dismissal, with decisions from the record file dairemizce return received between Cadastral, Cadastral parcels identified 18 and 20 of the 37 numbered 142 locating the name from the owners of parcel owners and …and …’S that are among the defendants is understood.
Court; 18 and wants to sue the plaintiff’s name immovable 122 and 136 37 20 plots of the island, not in name but in reality 142 18, 20 and 37 parcels, this is where the financial situation originates from the spelling error, as described above, the desired name to be the case from the plots identify the owners of parcels and 142 142 18 and 20 of the owners of two parcels identified 37 of the island, takes place as a defendant in the lawsuit, the plaintiff’s case is therefore directed at the owners of establishing understood, contested island 142 18, 20 and 37 parcels are defendants, and 136 ada 37 parcels are not defendants, so there is no valid waiver about it, 142 ada 37 parcels are out of the case from the owners of the detection …and … the case is included and the evidence is asked and collected, the evidence that the parties will report is collected and, a decision should be made according to the result by conducting an exploratory and expert examination, and since immovable property No. 136 ada 37 parcel is not a defendant, the minutes should be sent to the land registry office to be finalized by the usual means, but it was not considered correct to make a decision in writing and required a violation.
Additionally, the plaintiff’s discovery in the file name which he declares to sue dated 08/11/2010 19 19 122 122 parcels brought to the minutes of the parcel name, unless return and land Cadastre and the cadastral record with our decisions related directorates originally requested by the 19th parcel number of the parcel in the neighborhood of the town with the island reported an absence immovable 122, 122 No. 19 name shown in the sketch but sent the parcel understood in immovable because it is the subject of the court case the parcel in the presence of duly investigated 122 19th place on the island, if you have the original Cadastral record of the defendant, file enclosed in a case, made a decision about when you should be immovable, the court parcels of land as identified in the first paragraph of the provision in deciding 122 No. 19 name registration and certification is not.
Conclusion: 1) For the reasons described in the first paragraph above; 142 of the plaintiff’s appeals that are not considered on the spot … 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31 and 122. APPROVAL of the provision in accordance with the procedure and law with the refusal in respect of parcels No. 1 in respect of these parcels,
2) 3 of the provision for the reasons described in the second paragraph. by removing the phrase “145 islands” in the subparagraph and correcting it by writing the phrase “142 islands” in its place and amending the provision in provisional Article 3 of Law No. 6100. according to Article 438/7 of the HUMK. according to the article it is APPROVED in the corrected form,
3) For the reasons described in the third paragraph, it was unanimously decided on 28.06.2016 that the plaintiff’s appeals would be overturned by accepting the provision in respect of parcels 142 ada 18, 20 and 37 and 122 ada 19 for the reasons described in the third paragraph.