T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
E. T. BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/38098)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 27\/2\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Olcay \u00d6ZCAN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. \u0130dris \u015eAH\u0130N<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, miras yoluyla intikal eden ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 zilyetli\u011fi ile edinildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tapu iptal ve tescil davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. M.S.K. 18\/9\/2015 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun da aralar\u0131nda oldu\u011fu yirmi alt\u0131 daval\u0131 aleyhine Ordu 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) tapu iptali ve tescil talebiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu davada, Ordu’nun Alt\u0131nordu il\u00e7esinde bulunan 2306 ada 16, 17, 18 ve 19, 4830 ada 1 ve 1326 ada 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ifraz \u00f6ncesi geldisi olan 208 No.lu parseli 1958 y\u0131l\u0131nda malikler R.F. ile e\u015fi E.F.den sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak bu ki\u015filerin fera\u011f verememesi nedeniyle 1962 y\u0131l\u0131nda vek\u00e2letname d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, eski maliklerle daha sonra irtibat kuramad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, maliklerin 1982 ve 1983 y\u0131llar\u0131nda \u00f6ld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. 1958 y\u0131l\u0131ndan bu yana ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 nizas\u0131z ve fas\u0131las\u0131z olarak kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, emlak vergilerini \u00f6dedi\u011fini ve eski maliklerin miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n bu s\u00fcrede m\u00fclkiyet iddias\u0131nda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmi\u015ftir. F\u0131nd\u0131k bah\u00e7esi olarak kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardaki f\u0131nd\u0131klar\u0131n 2015 y\u0131l\u0131nda bilgisi ve r\u0131zas\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda s\u00f6k\u00fclmesi \u00fczerine yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rmada eski maliklerin miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n \u00f6nce A.\u00d6. isimli ki\u015fiye, ard\u0131ndan da ba\u015fvurucuya sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bu sat\u0131\u015flar\u0131n i\u015f birli\u011fi i\u00e7inde yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek 22\/11\/2001 tarihli ve 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 713. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan kazanma ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015ftu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na olan tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile ad\u0131na tescil edilmesini, bu talebi yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmez ise ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n dava tarihi itibar\u0131yla belirlenecek bedellerinin daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken tahsiline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 16\/2\/2017 tarihinde, noterde resm\u00ee \u015fekilde sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ve tapuda devre dair bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 713. maddesinin birinci ve ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131na g\u00f6re ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 yolu ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz kazanma \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve davan\u0131n ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7eleriyle davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir. \u0130stinaf talebini inceleyen Samsun B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 1. Hukuk Dairesi (B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi) 10\/7\/2017 tarihinde, eksik inceleme ve de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve davan\u0131n yeniden g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi i\u00e7in dosyan\u0131n mahkemesine iadesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Yeniden yarg\u0131lama yapan Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 5\/2\/2019 tarihinde, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na olan tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile davac\u0131 ad\u0131na tesciline karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde,<\/p>\n
i. Davac\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 1958 y\u0131l\u0131nda ve 1960’l\u0131 y\u0131llarda kay\u0131t maliklerinden sat\u0131n almas\u0131na ra\u011fmen tapuda devir i\u015flemi yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak dinlenilen tan\u0131k ve mahall\u00ee bilirki\u015fi beyanlar\u0131na g\u00f6re bu tarihten itibaren ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde kesintisiz \u015fekilde malik s\u0131fat\u0131 ile zilyet oldu\u011funu,<\/p>\n
ii. Davac\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde hukuki sorun bulunmas\u0131 nedeniyle tapuda devir alamad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin savunmas\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nan vek\u00e2letnamenin ta\u015f\u0131nmazla ilgili olmas\u0131 nedeniyle \u00f6rt\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ve yaz\u0131l\u0131 delil ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131 kabul edildi\u011fini,<\/p>\n
iii. 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 713. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 delaleti ile ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca kay\u0131t maliki yirmi y\u0131l \u00f6nce \u00f6lm\u00fc\u015f \u015fah\u0131s ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 yirmi y\u0131l s\u00fcreyle nizas\u0131z ve fas\u0131las\u0131z olarak malik s\u0131fat\u0131 ile zilyetli\u011finde bulunduran zilyedin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n tapuya tescilini talep edebilece\u011fini, kay\u0131t maliklerinin 1982 ve 1983 y\u0131llar\u0131nda vefat etti\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n 2003 y\u0131l\u0131nda ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc kazand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 zilyetli\u011fi yoluyla m\u00fclkiyeti kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131,<\/p>\n
iv. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 17\/3\/2011 tarihli ve E.2009\/58, K.2011\/52 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla ”\u00f6lm\u00fc\u015f ya da”kelimelerinin iptal edildi\u011fini ancak Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131n\u0131n geriye y\u00fcr\u00fcmeyece\u011fini, 2003 y\u0131l\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyeti kazanan davac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesinin iptal karar\u0131ndan etkilenmeyece\u011fini,<\/p>\n
v. 2015 y\u0131l\u0131nda eski kay\u0131t maliklerinin miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131ndan \u00f6nce A.\u00d6.ye, ard\u0131ndan da ba\u015fvurucuya yap\u0131lan sat\u0131\u015flar\u0131n yolsuz tescil niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funu, yolsuz tescile g\u00fcvenen iyi niyetli ki\u015filerin tapu siciline g\u00fcven ilkesi gere\u011fince korunaca\u011f\u0131 ancak tan\u0131klar\u0131n A.\u00d6.n\u00fcn davac\u0131n\u0131n kay\u0131nbiraderlerinin yar\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade ettiklerini, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n durumunu bilmemesinin hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k te\u015fkil etti\u011fini ve durumu bilmesine ra\u011fmen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131 ile daval\u0131 M.K.n\u0131n beyan\u0131na g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun davac\u0131n\u0131n malik s\u0131fat\u0131 ile zilyetli\u011finde oldu\u011funu bilmesine ra\u011fmen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu ve di\u011fer daval\u0131lar\u0131n istinaf talebini inceleyen B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 18\/6\/2019 tarihinde esasa ili\u015fkin istinaf taleplerini reddetmi\u015f, yarg\u0131lama giderlerine ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131 ise d\u00fczeltmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Yap\u0131lan temyiz talebi Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesinin 29\/9\/2020 tarihli karar\u0131yla incelenmi\u015f ve karar onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Onama karar\u0131nda, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan dosyaya sunulan vek\u00e2letnamenin dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazla ilgisinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 beyan edilmi\u015fse de 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 713. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131ndaki kazanmay\u0131 sa\u011flayan zilyetlik ve ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan \u201c\u2026maliki 20 y\u0131l \u00f6nce \u00f6lm\u00fc\u015f\u2026\u201d hukuki sebeplerine dayan\u0131larak a\u00e7\u0131lan m\u00fclkiyetin aktar\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin tapu iptali ve tescil davalar\u0131ndaharici sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n sadece davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n zilyetli\u011finin ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihini tespit etmekte \u00f6nemli oldu\u011fu, bu nedenle vek\u00e2letin dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazla ilgili veya haric\u00ee sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n ge\u00e7erli olup olmamas\u0131n\u0131n sonuca etkili olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kay\u0131t malikinin \u00f6l\u00fcm tarihinden \u201c\u00f6l\u00fcm\u201d nedeninin Anayasa Mahkemesince iptal edildi\u011fi tarihe kadar dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazda yirmi y\u0131ll\u0131k malik s\u0131fat\u0131 ile zilyetli\u011finin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dosya kapsam\u0131, bilgi ve belgelere g\u00f6re daval\u0131 A.\u00d6. ve ba\u015fvurucunun dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 sat\u0131n alma i\u015fleminde iyi niyetli kabul edilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 11\/11\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 11\/12\/2020 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvuru, s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Ulusal Yarg\u0131 A\u011f\u0131 Bili\u015fim Sistemi (UYAP) \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lan incelemede ba\u015fvurucu vekilinin 19\/8\/2021 tarihinde yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yenilenmesi talebindebulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bireysel ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131 ve ekleriyle UYAP’tan yap\u0131lan incelemede bu konuda karar verildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir tespitte bulunulamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu; ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 eski maliklerin miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131ndan, bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 ise miras\u00e7\u0131lardan sat\u0131n alan A.\u00d6.den tapu siciline g\u00fcven ilkesi kapsam\u0131nda sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n zilyetli\u011fine ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 olarak al\u0131nan vek\u00e2letnamede sadece dava a\u00e7ma yetkisi oldu\u011fu gibi ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n da farkl\u0131 oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Mahall\u00ee bilirki\u015filerin tarafs\u0131z olmas\u0131 gerekirken davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yazd\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve ilk mahall\u00ee bilirki\u015fi beyanlar\u0131yla olu\u015fan \u00e7eli\u015fkilerin giderilmedi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir. Miras b\u0131rakan\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm tarihinde miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n tereke mallar\u0131 \u00fczerinde hak sahibi oldu\u011funu, 2015 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan tescilin bildirici mahiyette ve Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlar\u0131n\u0131n derh\u00e2l uygulanacak nitelikte oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 M.K.n\u0131n seksen ya\u015f\u0131n \u00fczerinde oldu\u011funu, rapor al\u0131nmadan ve mahkemece dinlenmeden sundu\u011fu, hukuki a\u00e7\u0131dan belirsiz olan dilek\u00e7eye g\u00f6re karar verilerek h\u00e2kimin davay\u0131 ayd\u0131nlatma g\u00f6revine ayk\u0131r\u0131 davrand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 A.\u00d6.n\u00fcn imzas\u0131 olan ve davac\u0131n\u0131n sundu\u011fu dilek\u00e7e hakk\u0131nda A.\u00d6. taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6zel belgede sahtecilik su\u00e7undan \u015fik\u00e2yette bulunuldu\u011funu, \u015fik\u00e2yet dilek\u00e7esi ve soru\u015fturma dosyas\u0131 incelenmeden ve sonucu beklenmeden karar verildi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n vergilerini d\u00fczenli olarak yat\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etti\u011fini ancak davadan hemen \u00f6nce yat\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu durumun incelenmesi talebinin dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ilk verilen ret karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esi hakk\u0131nda Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda sundu\u011fu iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma ve m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011finden \u015fik\u00e2yet eden bir kimse, \u00f6nce b\u00f6yle bir hakk\u0131n\u0131n var oldu\u011funu kan\u0131tlamak zorundad\u0131r. Bu nedenle \u00f6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucunun Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesi uyar\u0131nca korunmay\u0131 gerektiren m\u00fclkiyete ili\u015fkin bir menfaate sahip olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131ndaki hukuki durumunun de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekir (Cemile \u00dcnl\u00fc, B. No: 2013\/382, 16\/4\/2013, \u00a7 26; \u0130hsan Vurucuo\u011flu, B. No: 2013\/539, 16\/5\/2013, \u00a7 31).<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvurucu ve di\u011fer daval\u0131lar aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan dava sonucunda ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na tapuya tescil edilen ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptaline ve davac\u0131 ad\u0131na tapuya tesciline karar verilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na tapuya kay\u0131tl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesi anlam\u0131nda bir m\u00fclk oldu\u011fu hususunda ku\u015fku bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Anayasa Mahkemesi Orhan Y\u00fcksel ([GK], B. No: 2013\/604, 10\/12\/2015) karar\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucunun murisinden kalan ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin olarak \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerce ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tescil davas\u0131n\u0131n 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 713. maddesi uyar\u0131nca kabul edilmesi sonucunda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 kaybetti\u011fini, an\u0131lan h\u00fckm\u00fcn taraflar aras\u0131nda toprak m\u00fclkiyeti ve kullan\u0131m\u0131 konusundaki zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcrelerini d\u00fczenlemek amac\u0131yla getirildi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Bu d\u00fczenlemedeki devletin amac\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fileri kamu yarar\u0131 gere\u011fi m\u00fclklerinden mahrum b\u0131rakmak olmay\u0131p yirmi y\u0131ldan uzun s\u00fcre fas\u0131las\u0131z ve nizas\u0131z kullan\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n kime ait oldu\u011funun d\u00fczenlenmesi oldu\u011funu, ba\u015fvurunun devletin m\u00fclkiyetin kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n kontrol\u00fc ya da m\u00fclkiyeti d\u00fczenleme yetkisi kapsam\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc kural\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelenmesi gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir (Orhan Y\u00fcksel, \u00a7 41).<\/p>\n
15. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun tapu siciline g\u00fcven ilkesine dayanarak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik iddialar\u0131 da dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak kamu makamlar\u0131nca do\u011frudan yap\u0131lan bir m\u00fcdahale mevcut olmay\u0131p \u00f6zel ki\u015filer aras\u0131 bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k s\u00f6z konusudur. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvuruda devletin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden inceleme yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
A. Genel \u0130lkeler<\/p>\n
16. \u00d6zel ki\u015filer aras\u0131ndaki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klarda olayda taraflar\u0131n birbirleriyle \u00e7at\u0131\u015fan menfaatleri vard\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla taraflar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya gelen menfaatlerini g\u00f6zeterek m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 korumakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olan devletin maddi ve usule ili\u015fkin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerini yerine getirip getirmedi\u011fi dikkate al\u0131narak sonuca var\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda ilk olarak devletin etkili bir hukuksal mekanizma olu\u015fturma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde belirli, ula\u015f\u0131labilir ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn mevcut olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 irdelenmelidir (Novartis Ag, B. No: 2015\/11867, 14\/11\/2018, \u00a7 76).<\/p>\n
17. \u0130kinci olarak ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleye etkin bir bi\u00e7imde itiraz edebilme, savunma ve iddialar\u0131n\u0131 yetkili makamlar \u00f6n\u00fcnde ortaya koyabilme olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131n\u0131p tan\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 incelenmelidir. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesi usule ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131k bir g\u00fcvenceden s\u00f6z etmemektedir. Bununla birlikte m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek anlamda korunabilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bu madde, Anayasa Mahkemesinin \u00e7e\u015fitli kararlar\u0131nda da ifade edildi\u011fi \u00fczere m\u00fclk sahibine m\u00fcdahalenin kanun d\u0131\u015f\u0131 veya keyf\u00ee ya da makul olmayan \u015fekilde uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin savunma ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 sorumlu makamlar \u00f6n\u00fcnde etkin bi\u00e7imde ortaya koyabilme olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 g\u00fcvencesini kapsamaktad\u0131r. Bu de\u011ferlendirmeyse uygulanan s\u00fcrecin b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcne bak\u0131larak yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r (benzer y\u00f6ndeki kararlar i\u00e7in bkz. Bekir Yaz\u0131c\u0131 [GK], B. No: 2013\/3044, 17\/12\/2015, \u00a7 71; Z\u00fcliye \u00d6zt\u00fcrk, B. No: 2014\/1734, 14\/9\/2017, \u00a7 36).<\/p>\n
18. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri hem \u00f6zel ki\u015filer aras\u0131ndaki m\u00fclkiyet uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131nda hem de taraflardan birinin kamu g\u00fcc\u00fc oldu\u011fu durumlarda ge\u00e7erlidir. Bu ba\u011flamda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu durumlarda usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin somut olayda yerine getirildi\u011finden s\u00f6z edilebilmesi i\u00e7in yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131n\u0131n kararlar\u0131nda konu ile ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e bulunmal\u0131, ayr\u0131ca belirtmek gerekir ki bu zorunluluk davac\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn iddialar\u0131na cevap verilmesi anlam\u0131na gelmemekle birlikte m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 ilgilendiren davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili esasa ili\u015fkin temel iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131nca \u00f6zenli bir \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilerek kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gerekmektedir (Kamil Darbaz ve GMO Yap\u0131 Grup End. San. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2015\/12563, 24\/5\/2018, \u00a7 53).<\/p>\n
19. Son olarak m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 koruyacak ve yeterli g\u00fcvence sa\u011flayacak hukuksal mekanizmalar\u0131n olu\u015fturulup olu\u015fturulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 incelenmelidir. \u00d6zel ki\u015filerin m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7at\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu gibi durumlarda bunlardan hangisine \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fck tan\u0131naca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n takdiri, kanun koyucuya ve somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulmak suretiyle yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131na ait bir yetkidir. Bununla birlikte her iki taraf\u0131n menfaatlerinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011funca dengelenmesi ve s\u00fcrecin taraflardan biri aleyhine \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcz bir sonuca da yol a\u00e7mamas\u0131 gerekir. Menfaatler dengesinin kurulmas\u0131nda taraflardan biri aleyhine bireysel olarak a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 ve ola\u011fan d\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir k\u00fclfetin y\u00fcklenmesi, pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin ihlali sonucunu do\u011furabilir. Buna g\u00f6re olay\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn \u015fartlar\u0131 ve taraflara tan\u0131nan t\u00fcm imk\u00e2nlarla taraflar\u0131n tutum ve davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurularak menfaatlerin adil bir \u015fekilde dengelenip dengelenmedi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilmelidir (Faik Tari ve Sultan Tari, B. No: 2014\/12321, 20\/7\/2017, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n
B. \u0130lkelerin Olaya Uygulanmas\u0131<\/p>\n
20. Ba\u015fvurucu, 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 713. maddesinin birinci ve ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re maliki yirmi y\u0131l \u00f6nce \u00f6lm\u00fc\u015f bir kimse ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n davas\u0131z ve aral\u0131ks\u0131z olarak yirmi y\u0131l s\u00fcreyle ve malik s\u0131fat\u0131yla zilyetli\u011finde bulundurulmas\u0131 durumunda zilyedin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n tapu k\u00fct\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne tesciline karar verilmesini isteyebilece\u011finin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini ancak an\u0131lan Kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer verilen\u201c\u00f6lm\u00fc\u015f ya da\u201d kelimelerinin Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan 2011 y\u0131l\u0131nda iptal edilmesine ili\u015fkin karar\u0131n do\u011frudan uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bunun yan\u0131ndayarg\u0131lama s\u00fcresince ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmay\u0131p hatal\u0131 de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finden ve ilk verilen ret karar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. Orhan Y\u00fcksel karar\u0131na konu olayda, ba\u015fvurucuya murisinden kalan ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin olarak \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerce ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 zilyetli\u011fine dayal\u0131 olarak a\u00e7\u0131lan tescil davas\u0131 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 713. maddesinde yer alan zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcrelerinin Anayasa Mahkemesinin iptal karar\u0131na kadar doldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Anayasa Mahkemesi 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 713. maddesinde yer alan h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin eri\u015filebilir, bilinebilir, \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir nitelikte ve m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni bir dayana\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015f; ayr\u0131ca kanun koyucunun ta\u015f\u0131nmaz m\u00fclkiyeti ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kullan\u0131m hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak toprak m\u00fclkiyetinin at\u0131l kalmamas\u0131, kullan\u0131larak ekonomiye katk\u0131 sa\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131n temin edilmesi amac\u0131yla yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczenlemelerin kamu yarar\u0131na dayal\u0131 me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir (Orhan Y\u00fcksel, \u00a7\u00a7 48, 49, 52, 53). Somut ba\u015fvuru a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan belirtilen ilkelerden ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni bir dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve kamu yarar\u0131na dayal\u0131 me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu kabul edilmelidir.<\/p>\n
22. Somut olayda, m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilerek sonuca ula\u015f\u0131lacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
23. Anayasa Mahkemesi benzer \u015fik\u00e2yete konu A\u015f\u0131r Tun\u00e7 (B. No: 2015\/17453, 22\/1\/2019) karar\u0131nda, Anayasa Mahkemesinin 17\/3\/2011 tarihli karar\u0131 ile 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 713. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan ve somut ba\u015fvuruya konu birle\u015fen davan\u0131n da dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan “\u00f6lm\u00fc\u015f” s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc iptal etti\u011fini, bu iptal karar\u0131ndan sonra daha \u00f6nce an\u0131lan h\u00fckme dayal\u0131 olarak m\u00fclkiyeti kazanan ki\u015filer y\u00f6n\u00fcnden s\u00f6z konusu karar\u0131n etkilerinin tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesinin (Daire) gerek ba\u015fvuruya konu dava \u00f6ncesi gerekse dava sonras\u0131 \u00e7e\u015fitli kararlar\u0131nda Anayasa’n\u0131n 153. maddesinin be\u015finci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fince Anayasa Mahkemesinin iptal kararlar\u0131n\u0131n geriye y\u00fcr\u00fcyemeyece\u011finin \u00f6zellikle vurguland\u0131\u011f\u0131, 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 713. maddesinin birinci ve ikinci f\u0131kralar\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak a\u00e7\u0131lan tapu iptali ve tescil davalar\u0131nda ko\u015fullar\u0131na uygun olarak yirmi y\u0131ll\u0131k zilyetlik s\u00fcresinin tamamland\u0131\u011f\u0131 anda m\u00fclkiyetin kazan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ifade edildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Daireye g\u00f6re zilyet lehine kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f (m\u00fcktesep) hak do\u011fdu\u011fundan Anayasa Mahkemesince y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn durdurulmas\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n verildi\u011fi 17\/3\/2011 tarihi ya da davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten hangisi \u00f6nceyse o tarihe kadar kazanma ko\u015fullar\u0131 tamamlanm\u0131\u015fsa tapunun iptaliyle zilyet ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re davan\u0131n y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn durdurulmas\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n verildi\u011fi 17\/3\/2011 tarihinden \u00f6nce veya sonra a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n bir \u00f6nemi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015f ve Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun da ayn\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc benimsedi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir ( A\u015f\u0131r Tun\u00e7, \u00a7 60).<\/p>\n
24. Yine Anayasa Mahkemesi Orhan Y\u00fcksel karar\u0131nda ilgili kanuni d\u00fczenlemenin k\u0131smen iptaline ili\u015fkin karar\u0131n ge\u00e7mi\u015fe d\u00f6n\u00fck olarak ba\u015fvurucu lehine bir hak do\u011furmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek Anayasa Mahkemesinin iptal kararlar\u0131n\u0131n geriye y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclemeyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esine dayan\u0131larak yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131n\u0131n zilyedin a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davay\u0131 kabul etmelerinin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi adil dengeyi bozmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Orhan Y\u00fcksel, \u00a7\u00a7 26-66).<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvurucunun iptal karar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011frudan uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yeti benzer mahiyetteki Orhan Y\u00fcksel ile A\u015f\u0131r Tun\u00e7 kararlar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkeler do\u011frultusunda yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f ve Anayasa Mahkemesinin iptal kararlar\u0131n\u0131n geriye y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclemeyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esine dayan\u0131larak yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131n\u0131n zilyedin a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davay\u0131 kabul etmelerinin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi adil dengeyi bozmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
26. Ba\u015fvurucunun di\u011fer \u015fik\u00e2yetleri incelendi\u011finde daval\u0131 s\u0131fat\u0131yla cevap ve delillerini sunabildi\u011fi, tan\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n dinlendi\u011fi, yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda karara ba\u011flanan usuli i\u015flemlere kar\u015f\u0131 itiraz etme imk\u00e2n\u0131 buldu\u011fu, mahkeme kararlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf ve temyiz kanun yolu ba\u015fvurusunda bulunabildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun yan\u0131nda mahkeme kararlar\u0131nda davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne ili\u015fkin ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7eye yer verildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 usul g\u00fcvencelerinden yeterince faydalanabildi\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir ihlal bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
27. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA 27\/2\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 27\/2\/2025 tarihli ve 2020\/38098 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 E. T. BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/38098) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 27\/2\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Olcay \u00d6ZCAN Ba\u015fvurucu : Vekili : Av. \u0130dris \u015eAH\u0130N \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, miras yoluyla intikal eden ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 zilyetli\u011fi ile edinildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan tapu iptal ve tescil davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. M.S.K. 18\/9\/2015 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucunun da aralar\u0131nda oldu\u011fu yirmi alt\u0131 daval\u0131 aleyhine Ordu 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) tapu iptali ve tescil talebiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu davada, Ordu’nun Alt\u0131nordu il\u00e7esinde bulunan 2306 ada 16, 17, 18 ve 19, 4830 ada 1 ve 1326 ada 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ifraz \u00f6ncesi geldisi olan 208 No.lu parseli 1958 y\u0131l\u0131nda malikler R.F. ile e\u015fi E.F.den sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak bu ki\u015filerin fera\u011f verememesi nedeniyle 1962 y\u0131l\u0131nda vek\u00e2letname d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, eski maliklerle daha sonra irtibat kuramad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, maliklerin 1982 ve 1983 y\u0131llar\u0131nda \u00f6ld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. 1958 y\u0131l\u0131ndan bu yana ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 nizas\u0131z ve fas\u0131las\u0131z olarak kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, emlak vergilerini \u00f6dedi\u011fini ve eski maliklerin miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n bu s\u00fcrede …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-73502","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n