The Rule That is the Subject of the Lawsuit
With the rule subject to the lawsuit, it is stipulated that the entire increased value of the land, which has increased in value as a result of the change in the zoning plan to be made on an island basis at the request of the immovable owners, will be taken as a share of the increase in value.The Rule That is the Subject of the Lawsuit
With the rule subject to the lawsuit, it is stipulated that the entire increased value of the land, which has increased in value as a result of the change in the zoning plan to be made on an island basis at the request of the immovable owners, will be taken as a share of the increase in value.
Justification of the Cancellation Request
In summary, in the application; it was stated that there is no public interest in paying the entire increased value of the land, which has increased in value as a share of the increase in value as a result of the change in the zoning plan, which will be made on an island basis at the request of all the immovable owners with the rule subject to the lawsuit, and that the transfer of the entire increase in value to the public as a result of the change in the zoning plan limits the right of ownership, and that the rule is contrary to the Constitution. summary, in the application; it was stated that there is no public interest in paying the entire increased value of the land, which has increased in value as a share of the increase in value as a result of the change in the zoning plan, which will be made on an island basis at the request of all the immovable owners with the rule subject to the lawsuit, and that the transfer of the entire increase in value to the public as a result of the change in the zoning plan limits the right of ownership, and that the rule is contrary to the Constitution.
The Court’s Assessment
While development activities and plans contribute to the economy of the city and the creation of a healthy environment by influencing or directing investments to be made in the city or its surroundings from a public perspective, they also affect the economic value of the immovable property owned by the individual from an individual perspective.hile development activities and plans contribute to the economy of the city and the creation of a healthy environment by influencing or directing investments to be made in the city or its surroundings from a public perspective, they also affect the economic value of the immovable property owned by the individual from an individual perspective. Taking into account the purpose of zoning activities, it is necessary to prioritize public and social benefits rather than individual benefits in the regulation of zoning plans. For this reason, it is understood that there is a legitimate purpose based on public interest in transferring the increasing value of the land, which has increased in value as a result of the zoning application, to the public as a share of value increase.
On the other hand, in development activities and plans, public benefit and individual benefit should be reconciled as much as possible and the owners should not be burdened with excessive and disproportionate burdens.n the other hand, in development activities and plans, public benefit and individual benefit should be reconciled as much as possible and the owners should not be burdened with excessive and disproportionate burdens. In this context, a comparison should be made between the benefit obtained by the owner from the zoning application and the portion of the increased value of the land, which is an increase in value, transferred to the public as a share of Decrement increase. Within this framework, if there is a clear imbalance between the increase in the value of the immovable property as a result of the Deconstruction application and the value of the part transferred to the administration, it is likely that the burden imposed on the owner will be excessive and disproportionate.
The fact that the public receives a high share of the increase in value arising from the zoning application carried out by the public without any effort or cost by the public is not enough to conclude that an excessive burden is placed on the person from the point of view of the right of ownership at all times. However, although taking a share of the increase in the value of some people’s assets due to zoning activities serves the purpose of creating financing to ensure that public services based on meeting social needs can be carried out without interruption, it was concluded that the entire increase in value exceeded reasonable and acceptable measures and placed an excessive burden on the owner.
In this case, it has been concluded that the rule stipulating that the entire increased value of the land with an increase in value should be taken as a share of the increase in value does not comply with reasonable and acceptable measures, places an excessive burden on the owner, Decays the fair balance that should be observed between the public interest and the property right of the owner against the owner, and therefore causes a disproportionate limitation.been concluded that the rule stipulating that the entire increased value of the land with an inc