T.C. SUPREME

5.Legal Department
Basis: 2016/3179
Verdict: 2016/11873
Decision Date: 14.06.2016

CASE FOR DETERMINATION OF THE EXPROPRIATION PRICE – THE EXPROPRIATION PRICE DETERMINED AFTER THE VIOLATION IS THE SAME AS THE PRICE STIPULATED BY THE FIRST DECISION – THE ENTIRE EXPROPRIATION PRICE IS PAID TO THE DEFENDANT-LEGAL INTEREST SHOULD BE OPERATED ON THE PRICE

Summary: after the break detected with the cost of expropriation under terms of the initial decision, the price is the same and the cost are paid by the defendant with the first decision of expropriation since 19.12.2011 detected on the compensation date 15.06.2012 legal interest from the date of the first decision should be operated until the day is not the person, is isabetsiz.

(2942 P. K. m. 10)

Case and Decision: 10 of the expropriation law No. 2942, amended by law No. 4650 between the parties. at the end of the trial due to the determination of the expropriation price based on the article and the registration of the expropriated real estate on behalf of the plaintiff administration: the Supreme Court examined the written provision of the above days and numbers given for the acceptance of the case, the plaintiff was requested by the attorney of the administration and the defendant with a petition, the documents in the file were read and considered necessary after the dispute was understood.

In accordance with the decision to overturn, which was followed by the court, the decision was established by review and action; the decision was appealed by the parties.

Although the annulment declaration was complied with by the court, the annulment requirements were not fully fulfilled. That is to say;

1)in accordance with paragraph 1 of the notice of violation complied with, the easement previously passed in favor of the sole General Directorate of the real estate subject to the lawsuit should be reflected in the value of the impairment of the real estate 25.06.2014 additional report should be based on the provision, without regard to the determination of the excess price in writing with an out-of-place reason,

2)subject of the case Gümüşhane province, Köse district, Kain 112/23 parcel No. 667.80 m2 of real estate passed through the channel instead of cancellation of the registration of the title deed to create a provision in such a way as to create hesitation in execution,

3)the cost of expropriation under terms after the break detected with the initial decision, the price is the same and the cost are paid by the defendant with the first decision of expropriation since 19.12.2011 detected on the compensation date 15.06.2012 legal interest from the date of the first decision should be operated until the day, not the person,

Although it is not true; since the elimination of these misconceptions does not require a retrial,

Provision clause of reasoned decision;

a)write the number (6,212. 52-TL) instead of the number (7,164. 52-TL) in Bend 3,

b)as a separate bent (if the amount of 950.00-TL invested in excess was paid to the defendant, the plaintiff was paid to the administration with collection from the defendant, if it was not paid to the plaintiff to the administration) to add the sentence,

c)clause No. 1 with all removed instead (with the acceptance of the case, …………… 112/23 parcel No. 23b, as shown in red in the schematic science and the expert report dated immovable 14/03/2012 M2 667,80 record with the cancellation of the deed, the deed to the plaintiff on behalf of the administration, registration, 14/03/2012-dated decision of the expert report to be counted science and the plans of the sentence to be written Oct,

d)as a separate bent (to the application of legal interest for the period from 19.12.2011 to 15.06.2012, which is the date of the first decision) to add the sentence,

It was decided unanimously on 14.06.2016 that the provision should be corrected and approved, that the appellate fees received in advance should be returned upon request and that the appellate fees should be registered with the Treasury. (¤¤)