Case Of Objection To Cadastral Determination – Decision On The Establishment Of The Forest Cadastre In The Location Of The Contested Immovable According To The Relevant Article Of The Law.
T.C. JUDICIARY
20th Civil Chamber
Main: 2015/11341
Decision: 2015/11182
Date of Decision: 16.11.2015
CASE OF OBJECTION TO CADASTRAL DETERMINATION – THE FOREST CADASTRE AT THE LOCATION OF THE DISPUTED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS RULED ACCORDING TO THE RELEVANT ARTICLE OF THE LAW – THE REGISTRATION DECISION, WHICH IS THE BASIS OF THE TITLE DEED, CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE TREASURY
SUMMARY: According to the statement in the petition, the lawsuit is related to the registration of the immovable property without title deed pursuant to Article 713 of the Civil Code. The forest cadastre was carried out in the location of the disputed immovable property according to the provision of Article 4 of the Law No. 3402 amended by the Law No. 5304. Considering that the registration decree, which is the basis of the title deed, constitutes a final judgment for the Treasury and is binding, the appeal objections, which are not deemed appropriate, are rejected and the judgment, which is in accordance with the procedure and law, is upheld.
(Article 713 of Law No. 4721) (Article 4 of Law No. 3402)
Case and Decision: The Supreme Court of Appeals has been requested by the defendant Treasury’s attorney for the review of the judgment established at the end of the hearing of the lawsuit between the parties, and after the acceptance of the appeal petition, which was understood to be in due time, the file was examined and considered accordingly:
In the plaintiff’s petition, the plaintiff claimed that the 57 m2 immovable property located in Rize province, Fındıklı district, H. village, field location and within the scope of the title deed dated 14/12/1995 and numbered 4, which was formed by the registration decision of the Fındıklı Civil Court of First Instance No. 1994/103 E. – 1995/34 K., was overlooked in the cadastral determinations and was not determined and requested the registration of the immovable property on behalf of the plaintiff.
The court decided to partially accept the lawsuit, to cancel the determination made regarding the 57 m2 part shown with the letter (A) and in red color in the expert report dated 06/01/2014 and to register and register the land deed in the name of the plaintiff by assigning a new parcel number to this place, and to dismiss the lawsuit due to the lack of passive hostility for the defendant Hara village legal entity and forest management directorate, and the judgment was appealed by the defendant Treasury attorney.
According to the statement in the petition, the lawsuit is related to the registration of the immovable property without title deed pursuant to Article 713 of the Civil Code.
The forest cadastre was carried out in the location of the disputed immovable property in accordance with the provision of Article 4 of the Law No. 3402 amended by the Law No. 5304.
Based on the scope of the file examined, the grounds on which the decision is based, the examination and research carried out by the expert forest expert, it was determined that the disputed immovable is not considered as a forest and that the conditions for the acquisition of immovable property through acquisitive possession written in Article 14 of the Law No. 3402 for the benefit of the person on whose behalf the registration decision was made, and that the title deed record dated 14/12/1995 and numbered 4, which is the basis of the plaintiff, is a party to the registration order numbered 1994/103 E.- 1995/34 K. of the Fındıklı Civil Court of First Instance, to which the Treasury is also a party. 1995/34 K. of the Fındıklı Civil Court of First Instance, to which the Treasury is also a party, and since it is taken into consideration that the registration decree, which is the basis of the title deed, constitutes a final judgment for the Treasury and is binding, it was unanimously decided on 16.11.2015 that the appellate objections, which were not deemed appropriate, were rejected and the judgment, which was in accordance with the procedure and law, was approved, and that there was no need to charge a fee in accordance with the amended Article 13/j of the Law on Fees.