11 Apr Court Decision Regarding The Request For Cancellation Of Cadastral Determinations
Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkey
20.Legal Department
Mainly: 2016/635
Decision: 2016/7543
Decision Date: 28.06.2016
REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION OF CADASTRAL DETERMINATIONS – IF THE ORIGINAL OF THE CADASTRAL MINUTES IS THE DEFENDANT, THE CASE FILE MUST BE TAKEN BETWEEN THE FILE AND A DECISION ON THE REAL ESTATE ACCORDINGLY-VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
Summary: also, the plaintiff’s … dated discovery .. name .. in the file, where he declared that he was not suing the parcel .. name .. the parcel report was not brought, our return decisions and the original Cadastral record was requested and the land registry and related Cadastral directorates …resort, … in the neighborhood .. name .. if the parcel is in the sketch sent, however, it is reported that there is no real estate with the parcel number .. name .. as it is understood that the parcel is numbered real estate, the court is in the place of the case .. name .. if the parcel has been properly investigated, if there is a cadastral record, the original defendant is taken between the file of the case and the file, a decision should be made accordingly about the real estate, the court, in the first paragraph of the provision .. name .. it is also not appropriate to decide on the registration and registration of the title deed, such as the determination of the numbered parcel. The sentence had to be broken.
(1086 P. K. m. 438)
Case: at the end of the hearing of the case between the parties, the decision of the Supreme Court to examine the provision established by the plaintiff …was requested by the plaintiff, after the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, which is understood to be in duration, the file was reviewed, considered necessary:
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 …, 142 island 37 parcel no. m2 on behalf of the defendant with field quality … 142 block no 24 parcel no. 9870.57 m2 on behalf of the defendant with field quality … 142 block no 25 parcel no. 9977.22 m2 on behalf of the defendant with field quality … 142 block no 26 parcel no. 14293.77 m2 on behalf of the defendant with field quality … 142 island 27 parcel no. 8342.59 m2 on behalf of the defendant with field quality … 142 block no 28 parcel number 8143,08 m2 area with field quality on behalf of the defendant … , 142 block no 31 parcels No. 14541,25 m2 on behalf of the defendant …… and his friends and 136 blcok no64 parcels No. 8342,59 m2 on behalf of the defendant with the field qualification …and friends were determined by the decision of the commission.
The plaintiff … filed a lawsuit with a request for determination and registration on his behalf with the cancellation of cadastral determinations of real estate on the basis of the land registry with a petition dated 20/11/2008. In the case filed by the combined file plaintiffs …and their friends against parcels 142 block no 25 and 26 based on the Land Registry, the decision to merge with this case was made.
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 block no 1 and No. 122, 136 block no 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 sentence has been appealed …by the plaintiff.
The case relates to an appeal to the cadastral survey.
Where contested real estate is located, Law No. 3402 amended by Law No. 5304 4. according to the provisions of the article 22/10/2008 – 21/11/2008 announced between the land cadastre has.
1) plaintiff … ‘ s contentious 142 blocks no 16,17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31 and from the point of view of Appeals for parcels 122 bklock no 1;
According to the scope of the file examined, the reason on which the decision is based, the discovery and expert reports received, the plaintiff’s basis for contested real estate does not comply with the land registry records, 142 block no 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 31 parcels of real estate have possession of the defendants and 122 block no 1, 142 blocks no 16, 17 and 23 parcels of real estate have no possession and are found to be shrub and raw soil, and there is no hit in the establishment of the provision in written form, with the rejection of Appeals that were not seen in place, the provision in accordance with the procedure and law had to be upheld.
2) in the combined file, the real estate subject to litigation in the main file is already the defendant 142 blocks no 25 and 26 parcels, although the court in the decision given in terms of the combined file, the island number of the parcels should be written as “142”, based on material error “145” number is not considered correct to write, since the judge of the cadastral court has an obligation to create the correct register, provision 3. instead of removing the phrase “145 blocks ” in the bend, it was necessary to correct the phrase “142 block” by writing.
3) plaintiff …’s contentious 142 blocks no 18, 20 and 37 parcels of real estate appeals;
Research and examination conducted by the court is not sufficient for the ruling. …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, it is understood that the court is among the defendants of 122 blocks no 18 and 20 parcels in terms of this block no number 18 and 20 parcels on the grounds that there is no room to be decided and 136 block no 37 parcels in terms of waiver on the grounds that the case was decided to be rejected, from the cadastral minutes taken between the return decisions and the file of our department, 142 blocks no 18 and 37 parcels and 20 parcels Cadastral determination Estates …and….
Court; 18 and wants to sue the plaintiff’s name immovable 122 and 136 37 20 plots of the blocks no, 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 blocks no, takes place as a defendant in the lawsuit, the plaintiff’s case is therefore directed at the owners of establishing understood, contested iblocks no 142 18, Considering that 20 and 37 parcels are the defendant and 136 blocks no 37 parcels are not the defendant, there is no valid waiver against them, 142 blocks no 37 parcels are included in the case …and …after the evidence is asked and collected, the evidence that the parties will report is collected and, a decision was made according to the result of discovery and expert examination, and since the real estate of 136 blocks no 37 parcels is not a defendant, the original record should be sent to the land registry office to be finalized in the usual ways, the decision was not considered correct and required to be broken.
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 blocks no 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 blocks no, 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 blocks no of Appeals not seen in place of the plaintiff …16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31 and 122 blocks no. 1 in terms of parcels with the rejection of the provision in accordance with the procedure and law in terms of these parcels to be upheld,
2) provision 3 for the reasons described in the second paragraph. “145 blocks ” in Bend instead of removing the phrase “142 blocks ” by writing correction and provision 6100 no.of the law provisional 3. 438/7. according to the article, this is confirmed in its corrected form,
3) for the reasons described in the third paragraph; the plaintiff …’s appeals 142 blocks 18, 20 and 37 and 122 blocks 19 in terms of parcels with the acceptance of the provision was decided unanimously on 28.06.2016.
No Comments