25 Dec THE DECISION ON THE OCCUPATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
T.C SUPREME COURT 16.Legal Department, Base: 2016/ 16646 Decision: 2020 / 234 Decision Date: 10.02.2020
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE: COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
As a result of the case between the parties, it was dec that the decision given by the Supreme Court be examined; It was understood that the appeal request was in due course, the examination report and the documents in the file were read, DISCUSSED AS NECESSARY:
As a result of the cadastral survey, real estate in the area of 5,613.07 and 22,170.00 square meters, respectively, numbered parcels, located in the working area of the … District … Village,
due to the lucrative statute of limitations, they have been identified and registered through the field and on behalf of their customers. The plaintiff … has sued the Legal Entity with a request to cancel the title deed and register it in his name based on the claim that the disputed real estate is a pasture in the nature of the public medium. During the trial, the intervening Public participated in the case with a request to cancel the land registry and register it in its name by means of raw land, arguing that the disputed real estate is located in places under the jurisdiction and savings of the state. At the end of the trial by the court, it was decided to accept the case, cancel the title deeds of the real estate numbered 101, 170 and 471 parcels, as well as the registration of the property in the private registry with the qualification of pasture on behalf of the Public, reject the case of the Public, the principal participant; the verdict was appealed by the defendants’ deputies.
According to the contents of the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons for the necessity in accordance with the law, there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, other appeals of the defendants’ deputies are not in place. However, while it should be decided to limit the real estate numbered 101, 170 and 471 parcels to pasture and write it down in the special register, the fact that it was decided to “register it in the special register with the qualification of pasture on behalf of the Public ” is incorrect and requires distortion; although correction of this issue does not require a retrial, paragraph A-1 of the provision. located in Bend, “cancel” with the words “from the pasture on behalf of the Public with the qualities of the registration in the special register word” instead of subtracting from the provisions of this “limitation and pasture to be written to the special register as the words” approved and corrected with the addition of this form of provision, the legal conditions occur when the correction of the decision within 15 days of the receipt of the decision to open the way for 10.02.2020 on the day it was decided unanimously.
No Comments