Cancellation of the Rule that Stipulates that the Entire Value Increases as a Result of the Zoning Plan Change
Subject Rule
In the rule subject to the lawsuit, at the request of the immovable owners, the entire increased value of the land that has gained value as a result of the change in the zoning plan to be made on an island basis is taken as a share of the increase in value.
Reasons for the Cancellation Request
In summary, in the application; It was stated that there is no public interest in paying the entire increased price 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 all the immovable owners, and that the transfer of the entire share of the increase in value resulting from the change in the zoning plan to the public limits the right of ownership, suggesting that the rule is Unconstitutional.
The Court’s Assessment
While zoning activities and plans contribute to the urban economy and the formation of a healthy environment by influencing or directing investments to be made in or around the city from a public point of view, from an individual point of view they affect the economic value of the real estate owned by an individual. Considering 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, the value of which has increased as a result of the zoning application, to the public as a share of the increase in value.
On the other hand, public interest and individual benefit should be reconciled as much as possible in zoning activities and plans, and an excessive and disproportionate burden should not be imposed on the owners. In this context, a comparison should be made between the benefit received by the owner from the zoning application and the part of the land that is transferred to the public as the Decrement of the increase in value. In this context, if there is a clear imbalance between the increase in the value of the real estate as a result of the Deconstruction application and the value of the part transferred to the administration, the burden imposed on the owner is likely to be excessive and disproportionate.
If the public receives a high share of the increase in the value of the real estate as a result of the zoning application carried out by the public and this situation does not impose any burdens or costs on the owner, it is not enough to conclude that the owner is always burdened with an excessive burden in terms of property rights. However, although taking a share of the increase in value that occurs in the assets of some people as a result of zoning activities serves the purpose of creating financing that will ensure the uninterrupted execution of public services based on meeting social needs, it was concluded that taking the entire increase in value as a share of the increase in value exceeds reasonable and acceptable measures and imposes 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 is not in accordance with reasonable and acceptable measures and imposes an excessive burden on the owner. it Decays the fair balance that should be observed against the owner between the public interest and the property right of the owner and therefore causes a disproportionate restriction.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the rule was Unconstitutional and decided to cancel it.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.