Esas No:2019\/9695<\/strong> 5. Hukuk Dairesi 2019\/9695 E. , 2021\/4395 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAHKEMES\u0130<\/strong>: … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 14. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n\n\n\n Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki kamula\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131z el at\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz bedelinin tahsili davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda: Davan\u0131n g\u00f6rev nedeniyle reddine ili\u015fkin ilk derece mahkemesinin karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131lar vekilinin istinaf ba\u015fvurusu \u00fczerine … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin 14. Hukuk Dairesinin istinaf isteminin davan\u0131n esastan reddi yerine g\u00f6rev y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddi do\u011fru de\u011fil ise de, istinaf yoluna ba\u015fvuran\u0131n s\u0131fat\u0131na g\u00f6re bir isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden esastan reddine dair verilen karar ile birlikte … 11. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 2015\/467 E. – 2018\/398 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n Yarg\u0131tay’ca incelenmesi davac\u0131lar vekilince verilen dilek\u00e7e ile istenilmi\u015f olmakla, dosyadaki belgeler okunup uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: T.C.Yarg\u0131tay5. Hukuk Dairesi Esas No:2019\/9695Karar No:2021\/4395K. Tarihi: 5. Hukuk Dairesi 2019\/9695 E. , 2021\/4395 K. MAHKEMES\u0130: … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 14. Hukuk Dairesi Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki kamula\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131z el at\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz bedelinin tahsili davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda: Davan\u0131n g\u00f6rev nedeniyle reddine ili\u015fkin ilk derece mahkemesinin karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131lar vekilinin istinaf ba\u015fvurusu \u00fczerine … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10362,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[63],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11164"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11164"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11164\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11165,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11164\/revisions\/11165"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10362"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Karar No:2021\/4395<\/strong>
K. Tarihi:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
– K A R A R –
Dava, kamula\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131z el at\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz bedelinin tahsili istemine ili\u015fkindir.\u0130lk derece mahkemesince davan\u0131n g\u00f6rev nedeniyle reddine ili\u015fkin olarak verilen karara kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131lar vekili taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 14.Hukuk Dairesince, davan\u0131n esastan reddi yerine g\u00f6rev y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddi do\u011fru de\u011fil ise de istinaf yoluna ba\u015fvuran\u0131n s\u0131fat\u0131na g\u00f6re bir isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden HMK<\/strong>‘n\u0131n 353\/1-b-1 maddesi uyar\u0131nca esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015f olup; h\u00fck\u00fcm, davac\u0131lar vekilince temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 14. Hukuk Dairesinin esastan ret karar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra, … 11 Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 2015\/467 E. – 2018\/398 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesinde;Dosyada bulunan bilgi ve belgelerden; dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n, 1991 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan 1\/1000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli uygulama imar plan\u0131nda ‘Belediye hizmet alan\u0131’ olarak ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, … B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediye Meclisinin 12.09.2012 <\/strong>tarihli ve 1449 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile onanan 1\/5000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli naz\u0131m imar plan\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi ile parselin ‘\u00f6zel sosyal k\u00fclt\u00fcrel tesis alan\u0131na’ d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, s\u00f6z konusu naz\u0131m imar plan\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fine istinaden 1\/1000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli uygulama imar plan\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011finin … Belediyesi Meclisinin 10.06.2013 <\/strong>tarihli ve 352 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile yerine getirildi\u011fi, … B\u00fcy\u00fck\u015fehir Belediye Meclisinin 13.08.2013 <\/strong>tarihli ve1430 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile bu de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fin onand\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve plan\u0131n kesinlik kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131, b\u00f6ylece en son onanan plan de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fine g\u00f6re dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ‘\u00f6zel sosyal k\u00fclt\u00fcrel tesis alan\u0131’ olarak ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve dosya i\u00e7erisindeki fen bilirki\u015fisi raporuna g\u00f6re dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n k\u0131smen Park R\u00f6nesans sitesi i\u00e7erisinde misafir otopark\u0131 ve m\u00fc\u015ftemilat\u0131, k\u0131smen a\u011fa\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lan alan k\u0131smen de bo\u015f arazi olarak kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.28.03.2018 <\/strong>tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davada 20.08.2016 <\/strong>tarihli 6745 say\u0131l\u0131 yasan\u0131n 34. maddesi ile m\u00fclga olan Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma Kanununun ge\u00e7ici 6. maddesinin 10. f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n 3. c\u00fcmlesinin uygulanma imkan\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, bu h\u00fck\u00fcm yerine 6745 say\u0131l\u0131 Yasan\u0131n 33. maddesi ile eklenen Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma Kanununun EK<\/strong> 1. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131ndaki ”Uygulama imar planlar\u0131nda umumi hizmetlere ve resmi kurumlara ayr\u0131lmak suretiyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcne dokunacak \u015fekilde tasarrufu hukuken k\u0131s\u0131tlanan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar hakk\u0131nda, uygulama imar planlar\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmesinden itibaren be\u015f y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde imar programlar\u0131 veya imar uygulamalar\u0131 yap\u0131l\u0131r ve b\u00fct\u00e7e imkanlar\u0131 dahilinde bu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar ilgili idarelerce kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131l\u0131r veya her halde m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131na engel te\u015fkil edecek k\u0131s\u0131tl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 kald\u0131racak \u015fekilde imar plan\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi yap\u0131l\u0131r\/yapt\u0131r\u0131l\u0131r. Bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde belirtilen i\u015flemlerin yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 halinde ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n malikleri taraf\u0131ndan, bu Kanunun ge\u00e7ici 6’nc\u0131 maddesindeki uzla\u015fma s\u00fcrecini ve 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130mar Kanununda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen idari ba\u015fvuru ve i\u015flemleri tamamland\u0131ktan sonra ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131ndan sorumlu idare aleyhine idari yarg\u0131da dava a\u00e7\u0131labilir.” h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn, Anayasa Mahkemesinin 05.04.2019 <\/strong>tarihinde Resmi Gazete’de yay\u0131nlanan 20.12.2018 <\/strong>g\u00fcn 2016\/181 Esas, 2018\/111 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile ”Bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde belirtilen i\u015flemlerin yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 halinde ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n malikleri taraf\u0131ndan, bu Kanunun ge\u00e7ici 6’nc\u0131 maddesindeki uzla\u015fma s\u00fcrecini ve 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130mar Kanununda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen idari ba\u015fvuru ve i\u015flemleri tamamland\u0131ktan sonra ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131ndan sorumlu idare aleyhine idari yarg\u0131da dava a\u00e7\u0131labilir. ” k\u0131sm\u0131 da iptal edilmi\u015ftir.
Bu durumda; Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme B\u00fcy\u00fck Genel Kurulunun 16.05.1956 <\/strong>g\u00fcn ve 1\/6 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile HGK<\/strong>.n\u0131n 15.12.2010 <\/strong>g\u00fcn ve 2010\/5-662\/651 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 da g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde, uzun y\u0131llar programa al\u0131nmayan imar plan\u0131n\u0131n hayata ge\u00e7irilmemesi nedeniyle kamula\u015ft\u0131rma ya da takas cihetine gitmeyen daval\u0131 idarece, pasif ve suskun kal\u0131nmak ve i\u015flem tesis edilmemek suretiyle ta\u015f\u0131nmaza m\u00fcdahale edildi\u011fi; bu haliyle idarenin eyleminin, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcne dokunan ve onu ortadan kald\u0131ran bir niteli\u011fe sahip oldu\u011fu bu \u015fekilde kamula\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131z el koyma olgusunun ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011finin kabul\u00fc gerekir. Kamula\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131z el koyma olgusunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fal sonucu, idarenin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 eylemiyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 engellenen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal sahibi davac\u0131n\u0131n, dava yoluyla kamula\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131z el koyma h\u00fck\u00fcmleri do\u011frultusunda m\u00fclkiyetin bedele \u00e7evrilmesini, e\u015f s\u00f6yleyi\u015fle idareden de\u011fer kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n verilmesini isteyebilece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.Bu itibarla dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n uzun y\u0131llardan beri yap\u0131lan parselasyon planlar\u0131 ile kamu hizmetine tahsis edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 ve son olarak da sosyal k\u00fclt\u00fcrel tesis alan\u0131 olarak tahsis edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle, fiilen el at\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f olsa dahi m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcresi belirsiz \u015fekilde k\u0131s\u0131tlanmas\u0131 nedeniyle kamula\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131z el atma olgusu ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015f olup, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ayn\u0131na ili\u015fkin bu davaya bakmak A**** *** g\u00f6revidir.Dosya i\u00e7indeki bilgi ve belgelerden; dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 1992 y\u0131l\u0131nda onaylanan imar plan\u0131na g\u00f6re kamuya \u00f6zg\u00fclenen alanda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k otopark, bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n da a\u011fa\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmak suretiyle kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 idarelerin iddias\u0131n\u0131n aksine, biti\u015fik kamuya \u00f6zg\u00fcl\u00fc alandaki a\u011fa\u00e7land\u0131rma ile bir b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fck arzetti\u011fi g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde tutuldu\u011funda, el atma olgusunun ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tamam\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011finin kabul\u00fc ile esasa girilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmesi,
Do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.Davac\u0131lar vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde oldu\u011fundan h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle HMK<\/strong>‘nun 371. maddesi uyar\u0131nca BOZULMASINA<\/strong>, HMK<\/strong>‘nun 373\/1. maddesi uyar\u0131nca karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 14. Hukuk Dairesi’ne G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE<\/strong>, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz harc\u0131n\u0131n istenildi\u011finde iadesine ve temyize ba\u015fvurma harc\u0131n\u0131n Hazineye irad kaydedilmesine, 30\/03\/2021 <\/strong>g\u00fcn\u00fcnde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"