Litigation Costs and Land Registry Charges in De Facto Expropriation

The provision amended by law no. 7584

Article 29 of the Expropriation Law, which governs costs, was amended by article 16 of law no. 7584, the Law Amending the Soil Conservation and Land Use Law and Certain Other Laws, passed on 11 June 2026. The amendment was published in the Official Gazette of 20 June 2026 (issue 33286) and entered into force the same day.

Under the previous wording, the costs borne by the administration were the travel allowances of the court panel, the fees of the experts and of the village headman heard at the site inspection, land registry charges, and other expenses required by the Law. These were payable by "the administration carrying out the expropriation".

The new wording expressly adds two situations so far as land registry charges are concerned: charges arising on enforcement of final court judgments ordering registration following de facto expropriation and compensation proceedings, and charges arising on implementation of a settlement record drawn up between the owner and the administration by reason of de facto expropriation.

The person liable was also simplified: "the administration carrying out the expropriation" became simply "the administration". Where no expropriation procedure was ever carried out, the former wording was open to argument, and the change sits consistently with the newly added situations.

What is de facto expropriation?

De facto expropriation occurs where an administration takes possession of immovable property without carrying out an expropriation procedure, or without completing one. Expropriation is subject to a detailed procedure laid down in the Constitution and the Expropriation Law, including advance payment of compensation, valuation and registration.

Where that procedure is not followed and possession is taken in fact, the owner's property right is extinguished in practice, while the land registry record often continues to show the owner as the titleholder. That mismatch calls for separate legal steps, both to recover the value and to correct the register.

In provinces such as Antalya, where development and infrastructure investment are intense, such disputes commonly arise around roads, parks, school sites and technical infrastructure. For the general approach followed in these files, see our Antalya administrative lawyer page.

De facto and legal expropriation distinguished

Two situations are distinguished in practice. De facto expropriation arises where the administration physically enters the property, builds on it, or allocates it in fact to a public service. There is a material interference with the property.

Legal expropriation arises where there is no physical interference, but the owner's power of disposition is restricted in law because the property has been allocated in the implementation development plan to public services or public institutions. The property remains with the owner, yet building on it or disposing of it has become impossible in practice.

The distinction is not merely conceptual: it bears on the forum and on the procedure to be followed. Claims for value and compensation arising from de facto expropriation and claims arising from legal restriction follow different routes. Which situation exists on the facts is determined by examining the current state of the property together with the development plan records.

Restriction arising from a development plan: Additional Article 1

Cases of legal expropriation are governed by Additional Article 1 of the Expropriation Law. Where property is allocated in an implementation development plan to public services or public institutions in a way that touches the essence of the property right and restricts disposition in law, development programmes or development applications are to be carried out within five years of the plan entering into force.

Within the same period the property is to be expropriated by the relevant administration within budgetary means, or in any event the development plan is to be amended so as to remove the restriction preventing exercise of the property right.

Several sentences and paragraphs of the article have been annulled by the Constitutional Court, by judgments given in 2018 and in 2025. Where a claim rests on legal expropriation, it is therefore necessary to check against the current consolidated text which parts of the article remain in force.

The settlement procedure and the condition precedent

Provisional Article 6 of the Expropriation Law governs claims relating to property allocated in fact to a public service, or assigned to a need relating to the public interest with a facility built upon it, between 9 October 1956 and 4 November 1983. For matters within that article, applying the settlement procedure first is a condition precedent to bringing proceedings.

The process begins with an invitation from the administration or an application by the owner. The estimated value of the property is determined by the valuation committee on the basis of its characteristics at the date of taking. The settlement committee then invites the claimant to settlement discussions within six months at the latest of the date of application.

Settlement may take the form of an exchange for property belonging to the administration, the grant of a limited right in rem over such property, the grant of development rights elsewhere under the development legislation, or, where none of these is possible, payment in money. Discussions are to be concluded within six months at the latest of the date the invitation is accepted, and the outcome is recorded in a record.

If no settlement is reached, an action for determination of value may be brought by the owner or the administration within three months of the date the record of non-settlement was drawn up. Information and documents relating to the settlement discussions do not constitute evidence against either party in any proceedings brought.

The practical effect: who pays the land registry charge?

The clearest effect of the amendment concerns the financial burden at the registration stage of de facto expropriation files. Proceedings for determination of value and compensation commonly conclude with an order that the property be registered in the name of the administration. Who bears the charges accruing at the land registry when that judgment is enforced has now been settled by the wording added to the article.

The same clarity has been provided for files concluded by settlement without proceedings. Land registry charges arising on implementation of the settlement record are also payable by the administration. An owner who chooses the settlement route is therefore no longer at risk of facing a heavier burden in charges than one who litigates.

This should be read together with the rule in Provisional Article 6 that court and enforcement charges and all attorney fees in proceedings under that article are determined as fixed amounts. Read together, the two provisions reflect an approach limiting the burden of charges and costs on the owner in de facto expropriation files.

By contrast, expert fees, site inspection costs and travel allowances were already payable by the administration under the article. In that respect the amendment preserves the existing position and extends the scope only in relation to land registry charges.

Which files does the amendment apply to?

Under article 29 of law no. 7584, the provisions of that Law other than article 20 entered into force on the date of publication. Article 16, which amends article 29 of the Expropriation Law, falls within that group and has applied since 20 June 2026.

As provisions on costs are procedural in character, argument in practice tends to turn on the date the charge accrued. Where enforcement of the judgment or implementation of the settlement record takes place after the date of entry into force, the new wording falls to be applied.

The article contains no provision for retrospective refund of charges paid before that date. Claims directed at the past are therefore a separate matter, to be assessed under the general rules.

Jurisdiction and venue

The forum depends on whether the dispute arises from de facto expropriation or from legal restriction under a development plan. Claims for value and compensation based on de facto expropriation are brought before the civil courts, while allegations of legal expropriation arising from a development plan are raised before the administrative courts.

Venue lies with the court of the place where the property is situated. Files concerning property in Antalya are heard by the relevant courts at the Antalya Courthouse, and claims subject to administrative jurisdiction before the Antalya Administrative Courts.

Whether the property lies in Konyaaltı, Muratpaşa or Kepez does not affect venue, as those districts have no separate courthouse. In claims within Provisional Article 6, the settlement stage must have been completed before proceedings are issued.

Frequently asked questions

Who pays the land registry charge in a de facto expropriation claim?

Under article 29 of the Expropriation Law as amended by law no. 7584, land registry charges arising on enforcement of final judgments ordering registration following de facto expropriation and compensation proceedings are payable by the administration. The same applies to charges arising on implementation of a settlement record drawn up between the owner and the administration.

When did the amendment enter into force?

It was published in the Official Gazette of 20 June 2026, issue 33286, and entered into force the same day.

What is the difference between de facto and legal expropriation?

In de facto expropriation the administration physically enters the property or builds on it. In legal expropriation there is no physical interference; the owner's power of disposition is restricted in law because the property has been allocated in an implementation development plan to public services.

Is settlement required before proceedings are issued?

For claims within Provisional Article 6 of the Expropriation Law, applying the settlement procedure is a condition precedent. If no settlement is reached, an action for determination of value may be brought within three months of the record of non-settlement.

Who bears expert and site inspection costs?

Under article 29 of the Expropriation Law, the travel allowances of the court panel and the fees of the experts and of the village headman heard at the site inspection are payable by the administration. That rule was already in force before the amendment.

In which court is a de facto expropriation claim brought?

Claims for value and compensation based on de facto expropriation are brought before the civil courts, and allegations of legal expropriation arising from a development plan before the administrative courts. Venue lies with the court of the place where the property is situated.

What determines the outcome in these files is the type of taking, its date and the development status of the property. Choosing a route before those three points have been established risks setting the process up wrongly from the outset.

For the general approach in property disputes arising in Konyaaltı and the surrounding area, see our Konyaaltı lawyer page. The office can be reached through the contact page.

---

For further detail on the matters discussed here, see our Administrative Law page.

The information on this page is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult a lawyer about your own situation.