1. Legal Basis and Fundamental Principles

Condominium Law No. 634 (CPL) Art. 3:Condominium ownership and floor easement are established based on the land share allocated proportionally to the values calculated according to the location and size of the independent sections. In cases where land shares are determined disproportionately to these values, each condominium owner or floor easement holder may apply to the court for the reallocation of land shares.

Valuation Criteria: When adjusting the land share, the value of the independent section at the date of establishment of the floor easement or condominium ownership is taken as basis. In this evaluation; factors such as the type of the section, its floor, area, heating system, lighting, architectural use, location, facade, and view are taken into account. Value increases or decreases occurring after the establishment date (zoning changes, maintenance-repair, etc.) are not considered.

2. Competent Court and Party Formation

Competent Court: In accordance with CPL Additional Article 1, the Civil Courts of Peace are competent in all disputes arising from the application of this law.

Party Formation: Since the correction of land shares can affect all shares in the main immovable property, it is mandatory for all apartment owners or easement holders, excluding the plaintiff, to be shown as a party (defendant) in the lawsuit.

3. Urban Transformation and Timing Criticality

Pre-Demolition Condition: A lawsuit for the correction of land shares can only be filed as long as the main structure maintains its floor easement or condominium ownership status.

Law No. 6306, Article 6 Effect: With the demolition of risky structures, condominium ownership/easement ceases, and the property transforms into co-ownership. Since independent sections legally cease to exist after the building is demolished, a lawsuit for the correction of land shares cannot be filed. Therefore, to avoid loss of rights during the urban transformation process, it is of vital importance that the lawsuit is filed before demolition and that an on-site inspection is conducted by the court.

4. Principle of Good Faith and Honesty (TCC Art. 2)

A request for correction made later by owners (or their heirs) who personally arranged the land shares, whose signatures are on the official floor easement deed, or who played an active role in determining the land shares, may be rejected as being contrary to the principle of honesty (good faith) under TCC Art. 2.

The court meticulously examines whether the plaintiff has a legal interest worth protecting in filing this lawsuit and whether they acted in good faith.

5. Points to Consider in Practice

Burden of Proof: The plaintiff must prove with concrete evidence (project, official deed, expert report, etc.) that the land shares were disproportionate to the values of the independent sections at the time of establishment.

Duration: Although no specific statute of limitations is stipulated in the law for this lawsuit, not raising an objection for a long time may constitute a disadvantage in the “good faith” assessment.

Additional Sections: In case of subsequent additions of floors or independent sections in accordance with Article 44 of the Condominium Law (KMK), the land shares must be redetermined by unanimous consent; failure to comply with this procedure may also be subject to a correction lawsuit.

Legal Basis and Fundamental Principles

According to Article 3 of the Condominium Law (KMK) No. 634; condominium ownership or condominium servitude is established over the land share allocated to each of the independent sections of the main building, proportional to its value at the date of establishment of the condominium servitude (or at that date if directly converted to condominium ownership). In cases where land shares are not allocated proportionally to the value of the independent sections, every condominium owner or condominium servitude owner may apply to the court for a readjustment of the land share (Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber – 2021/3126-2022/6381 – 05.04.2022).

Valuation Criteria and Examination Procedure

When correcting the land share, the value of the independent section at the date of establishment of the condominium servitude or condominium ownership is taken as a basis. The elements to be considered in this evaluation and the criteria determined in line with Supreme Court precedents are tabulated below:

As emphasized in the decision of the Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber-2024/10992-2025/4077 -25.03.2025, the primary condition for re-regulating land shares is that the land shares must have been determined disproportionately to the values of the independent units. The court must obtain an additional report from the expert committee and examine all elements affecting the value of the independent units one by one (Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber-2024/13683-2025/6630 -30.04.2025).

Competent Court and Party Formation

Competent Court: Pursuant to Article 1 of the Condominium Law (KMK) Annex, in all disputes arising from the application of this law, the Civil Courts of Peace are competent.

Formation of Parties: Since the lawsuit for the correction of land shares can affect all shares in the main immovable property, it is mandatory for all floor owners or owners of building servitude, other than the plaintiff, to be shown as parties (defendants) in the case (Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber-2022/3766-2022/14315 -19.10.2022).

Condition Before Urban Transformation and Demolition

A lawsuit for land share correction can only be filed as long as the main building maintains its status of building servitude or condominium ownership. With the demolition of risky structures under Law No. 6306, condominium ownership ceases, and the immovable property is converted into co-ownership.

According to the decision no. Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber-2016/11562-2017/72 -16.01.2017; in immovable properties destroyed by reasons such as earthquakes and no longer having independent sections, the application of KMK art. 3 is not possible because there are no independent sections whose values can be determined.

In the decision of the Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber-2025/2631-2025/7777 -20.05.2025, it was stated that a decision regarding the correction of land shares could not be made for immovable properties destroyed in the 1999 earthquake and converted to co-ownership, and thus the dismissal of the lawsuit was affirmed.

Also in decision no. Supreme Court 18th Civil Chamber-2007/9977-2008/2372 -2008, it was emphasized that independent sections cannot be mentioned after the main building is demolished, and therefore, the lawsuit can only be filed as long as the status is maintained.

Rule of Good Faith and Honesty (TMK art. 2)

The subsequent request for correction of land shares by owners (or their heirs) who personally arranged these shares or whose signatures appear on the official deed of building servitude may be found contrary to the rule of honesty (good faith) according to TMK art. 2.

Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber-2025/1665-2025/6965 -06.05.2025: In cases where the land shares are determined by the management plan, and the signature of the deceased, who is the owner of all independent sections, is present in this document, this determination binds the heirs. The heirs subsequently filing a lawsuit is incompatible with the rules of good faith.

Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber-2021/10013-2021/13186 -15.11.2021: It has been accepted that if the plaintiff’s signature is present in the documents and list during the establishment of condominium ownership, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be in good faith in requesting the correction of land shares, and there is no legal interest worthy of protection.

Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber-2018/3094-2018/7017 -05.11.2018: Since no one can transfer a right they do not possess, it has been stated that the person who acquires the independent section from the owner who participated in the arrangement also has a limited right to sue.

Other Matters to Consider in Practice

Burden of Proof: The plaintiff must prove with concrete evidence that the land shares were disproportionate to the values of the independent sections on the date of establishment. Not objecting for a long time may create a disadvantage in the good faith assessment (Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber-2022/10440-2023/7959 -26.09.2023).

Additional Sections: According to Article 44 of the Condominium Law (KMK), if all owners have consented to subsequent additions of floors or independent sections, it is not deemed possible to correct transactions established in accordance with this procedure under Article 3 of the KMK (Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber-2025/150-2025/8239 -22.05.2025).

Incomplete Review: In determining land shares, all independent sections in the main immovable property must be examined as a whole; excluding some sections from the review is contrary to the law (Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber-2021/6858-2021/10097 -22.09.2021).

Direct Consequence

A lawsuit for the correction of land share (Condominium Law Art. 3) is a type of declaratory action filed when the land shares allocated to independent sections are determined disproportionately to their values at the time the condominium ownership or building servitude was established L1. In urban transformation processes, the most critical consequence of this lawsuit is the requirement that the main structure must maintain its condominium ownership or building servitude status for the lawsuit to be filed. When the building is demolished and the condominium ownership status ceases, the legal possibility of filing a land share correction lawsuit disappears; owners are forced to accept co-ownership registration based on their existing (incorrect) shares

Conceptual Framework and Terminology

Land Share: According to Article 3 of the Condominium Law No. 634 (KMK), it is the share allocated to independent sections in proportion to their values calculated based on their location and size. This share establishes a system of “co-ownership attached to the property” L

Value-Based Allocation: When determining the land share, factors such as the area of the independent section, its floor, facade, view, and heating system are taken into consideration. What is important is that this valuation is made according to the prevailing market rates on the date it was established

Condition for Continuation of Status: For the case to be heard, the real estate must continue to be subject to the condominium ownership or construction servitude regime. This is referred to as the “second condition” in literature

Main Approaches in Doctrine

Doctrine and the Supreme Court’s practice address lawsuits for the correction of land shares based on the protection of property rights and the rule of honesty:

Nature of the Declaratory Action: The prevailing view argues that this lawsuit is not an action for performance or unjust enrichment, but a judicial determination of a right (the correct share ratio)

Prohibition of Administrative Intervention: Since the determination of land shares is made by the project author (architect/engineer), administrative authorities (municipality, etc.) have no authority to intervene in these ratios; correction is only possible through judicial means

Urban Transformation Impact: Since decisions made under Law No. 6306 (demolition, reconstruction, share sale) are based on land share ratios, the correction of an erroneous share directly affects the owner’s power of will in the decision-making process

Distinctions and Conflicts Between Approaches

Statute of Limitations Discussion: No specific period is stipulated in Article 3 of the Condominium Law (KMK). While one view argues that the lawsuit is not subject to the statute of limitations as it is based on property rights, some decisions of the Court of Cassation have shown tendencies to apply a 5-year statute of limitations by establishing a contract for work relationship. The matter has been referred to the Constitutional Court (AYM) for concrete norm review due to the absence of a stipulated time limit.

Condominium Easement Exception: While some views argue that even if a risky structure is demolished, the condominium easement does not automatically terminate under Article 49/2 of the Condominium Law (KMK), and therefore, in places with condominium easements, the lawsuit can still be debated after demolition, the general tendency is that the lawsuit will become moot with the demolition.

Determination of Legal Nature: The Court of Cassation’s fluctuating decisions between “nullity” and “annulment” make the legal basis of lawsuits to be filed by owners with incorrect land shares against urban transformation decisions controversial.

Procedural Outcomes and Effects on Litigation Strategy

Competence and Jurisdiction: According to Additional Article 1 of the Condominium Law (KMK), the competent court is the Civil Court of Peace. The jurisdiction belongs to the court where the immovable property is located, and it is of the nature of absolute jurisdiction.

Formation of Parties: Since the total of land shares must constitute the integer 1 (denominator), an increase in one owner’s share means a decrease in others’. Therefore, it is mandatory for all condominium owners other than the plaintiff to be designated as defendants.

Proof and On-site Inspection: An on-site inspection must be conducted by the court, and an apportionment should be structured through an expert based on the values of the structure at the time it was built

Substantive Law Outcomes and Risk Areas

Rule of Honesty (Turkish Civil Code Art. 2): A request for an increase in land shares by owners who personally determined these shares or benefited from advantages such as paying low dues for a long time without objecting to these shares, may be rejected under the scope of the “prohibition of contradictory conduct” during the urban transformation phase

Loss of Rights After Demolition: After the building is demolished, the land registry office ex officio carries out the cancellation process in accordance with Article 6/2 of Law No. 6306 and registers the immovable property as “shared ownership”. Since a lawsuit for the correction of land shares cannot be filed after this stage, the owner is left with their incorrect share

Inferences Applicable to the Specific Case

Timing: If a lawsuit for the correction of land shares is to be filed for a structure that has entered the urban transformation process, this must definitely be done before demolition occurs.

Evidence Determination: If demolition is imminent and the lawsuit process cannot be completed in time, it is vital for owners to at least file an “action for determination of evidence” to have the value of the independent sections and the structure recorded through the court, for any future compensation rights that may arise

Turkish Court of Appeals 18th Civil Chamber Decision No. 2007/9977 E.: According to this precedent, since independent sections are legally deemed non-existent after the main building is demolished, the request for redetermination of land shares will be rejected.

Open Questions, Exceptions, and Uncertainties

Definition of Demolition: There are grey areas in practice regarding whether the phrase “complete demolition” refers to actual demolition or the ex officio cancellation process in the title deed. 

Constitutional Court Decision Expectation: The Constitutional Court’s review of whether the lack of a time limit in land share adjustment lawsuits undermines property security may change future litigation strategies. 

Ownership Established by Court Decision: If the condominium ownership was previously established by a court decision (e.g., as a result of a lawsuit for the dissolution of partnership), a land share adjustment lawsuit cannot be filed due to res judicata. 

Conclusion and Practical Assessment 

The land share adjustment lawsuit is a powerful tool that can change the “mathematical foundation” of urban transformation. However, this tool can only be used while the building is standing. In practice, owners should file this lawsuit before the risky building decision becomes final or, at the latest, at the demolition permit stage, and promptly request an inspection from the court. Although a land share error can only be discussed under general provisions through compensation or violation of the rule of good faith in the post-demolition process, a “correction” in the sense of Article 3 of the Condominium Law (KMK) will no longer be possible.