FINALIZATION OF THE CADASTRE
Articles 11 and 12 of the Cadastre Law (KK) pertain to the announcement and finalization of cadastre records.
According to Article 11 of the KK, “The cadastral director shall prepare the posting schedules based on the findings made according to the cadastral records; he shall post these schedules and map samples at the directorate and also at the muhtar’s workplace for a period of 30 days; he shall indicate that those who have objections may file a lawsuit in the cadastral court within the posting period. Cadastral fees are also indicated in this announcement.
The cadastral director must complete these procedures within three months at the latest from the date the cadastral team completes its work in the area.”
According to Article 12 of the Cadastral Law, “After the 30-day announcement period has passed, the delimitations and determinations in the cadastral records for which no lawsuit has been filed become final.
The records finalized and approved by the cadastral director and the finalized decisions of the cadastral court shall be recorded in the land registry within three months at the latest, with the date of finalization indicated as the date of registration.
After ten years have passed from the date of finalization of the minutes relating to the rights, delimitations, and determinations specified in these minutes, no objection can be made and no lawsuit can be filed based on legal reasons prior to the cadastre.”
According to this provision, if no lawsuit is filed within 30 days against the cadastral minutes resulting from the cadastral works, these minutes become final with the approval of the cadastral director. Finalized records shall be registered in the land registry within 3 months at the latest. After the records are finalized, those claiming to be the true rightful owners may file a lawsuit for the correction of the land registry on the grounds that the registration is unlawful. However, according to Article 12 of the Cadastre Law, this lawsuit is subject to a statute of limitations. According to this provision, after ten years have passed from the date of finalization of the minutes relating to the rights, restrictions, and determinations specified in the minutes, no objection may be made and no lawsuit may be filed based on legal reasons prior to the cadastre.
This 10-year period is a statute of limitations. It must be taken into account ex officio by the judge. As it is a limitation period, it cannot be interrupted or suspended.
The Supreme Court decisions on this matter are as follows: “Article 12/3 of Law No. 3402 states that claims based on legal grounds prior to cadastral registration cannot be asserted after ten years have passed from the date of finalization of the cadastral records.
Again, the purpose of accepting limitation periods in Cadastral Laws is to protect public order. The limitation period limits the freedom to seek rights for a certain period, not the right of ownership. Since these periods directly concern public order, they must be considered ex officio by the court, regardless of the stage of the case.
In the present case, the lawsuit was filed on May 21, 2001, the plaintiffs relied on the 1970 inheritance waiver agreement, the cadastral survey of the immovable properties was conducted in 1979, and the surveys became final on July 7, 1982, and March 31, 1980. Based on all these explanations, the plaintiff’s claim is based on legal grounds prior to the date of the cadastral survey.
Therefore, in accordance with the above explanations and the provisions of the law, since a 10-year statute of limitations period has elapsed between the date the cadastral survey became final and the date of the lawsuit, and since the statute of limitations period can be considered at every stage of the lawsuit and is a matter of public order, and considering that the previous reversal does not give rise to acquired rights for the parties, the lawsuit should have been dismissed due to the statute of limitations period. Therefore, the decision to accept the lawsuit as written was incorrect and required reversal.
“The court ruled in writing that the lawsuit was filed based on reasons prior to the determination and that the plaintiffs had rights acquired through inheritance. However, according to the provision in Article 12/3 of Law No. 3402, lawsuits of this nature can be filed within 10 years from the date the cadastral determination became final. In the present case, it is understood from the file that the cadastral survey for parcel no. 11 was finalized in 1987 and that for parcel no. 12 in 1984. The present case was filed on November 25, 2013, and therefore, it is clear that the 10-year period stipulated by law had expired as of the date of the lawsuit. Therefore, the lawsuit should have been dismissed due to the statute of limitations, but this aspect was disregarded, and the court proceeded to the merits and decided to accept the lawsuit with written reasons. This is incorrect, and it is also incorrect to establish a ruling that cannot be enforced by not indicating the shares that were canceled and decided to be registered and those in whose favor the registration decision was made.
It is also not possible to file a lawsuit in cases where third parties are protected by the principle of reliance on the land registry (TMK m. 1023) or ordinary statute of limitations (TMK m. 712). In other words, within a period of 10 years, the acquisition of real rights by those who have acquired them in good faith by relying on the record is protected for immovable properties that have been fraudulently registered.
