T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
H\u0130LM\u0130 KOCABEY BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/21192)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 21\/5\/2024<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Olcay \u00d6ZCAN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hilmi KOCABEY<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlenmesi ve aleyhe vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. D\u00fczce’nin Ak\u00e7akoca il\u00e7esi Dilaver k\u00f6y\u00fcnde bulunan f\u0131nd\u0131k bah\u00e7esi niteli\u011findeki 5293,41 m\u00b2 y\u00fcz \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcml\u00fc ta\u015f\u0131nmazda ba\u015fvurucunun 1\/4 hissesi bulunmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan B\u00fcy\u00fck \u0130stanbul \u0130\u00e7me Suyu II. Merhale Projesi kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lacak kamula\u015ft\u0131rma i\u015flemleri i\u00e7in 1996 y\u0131l\u0131nda kamu yarar\u0131 karar\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bakanlar Kurulu da 2012 y\u0131l\u0131nda bu proje kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lacak Melen Baraj\u0131’n\u0131n kum malzemesinin temini i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucunun hissesi bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n da aralar\u0131nda oldu\u011fu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n acele usulde kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. \u00c7evre ve Orman Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Devlet Su \u0130\u015fleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (DS\u0130) taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen 19\/4\/2013 tarihli k\u0131ymet takdir raporunda, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00b2 de\u011ferinin 25,34 TL oldu\u011fu ve %30 objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 ile birlikte toplam m\u00b2 de\u011ferinin 33,50 TL olaca\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. DS\u0130’nin 27\/5\/2013 tarihinde ta\u015f\u0131nmaza acele usulde el konulmas\u0131 talebi \u00fczerine Ak\u00e7akoca Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) 10\/7\/2013 tarihinde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, ta\u015f\u0131nmaza acele el konulmas\u0131na izin verilmesine ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bedeli olarak tespit edilen 139.375,48 TL’nin bankaya depo edilmesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. DS\u0130 24\/12\/2013 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucu ve di\u011fer malikler aleyhine Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti ve tescil istemiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan ke\u015fif sonucu dosyaya sunulan bilirki\u015fi raporunda; ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fccavir alan s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda oldu\u011fu, belediye hizmetlerinden yararlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kapama f\u0131nd\u0131k bah\u00e7esi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu, arsa vasf\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015f ve il\u00e7e tar\u0131m m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc verileri dikkate al\u0131narak ta\u015f\u0131nmaza net gelir metodu uygulanmak suretiyle m\u00b2 de\u011ferinin 34,79 TL ve toplam de\u011ferinin 138.118,29 TL oldu\u011fu belirlenmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca bilirki\u015fi raporunda; ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n \u00e7\u0131plak m\u00b2 de\u011ferinin 30,25 TL oldu\u011fu, Ak\u00e7akoca, Karasu ve Kocaeli plajlar\u0131na yak\u0131n konumda olmas\u0131 ve rafting sporunun yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00fczerg\u00e2h \u00fczerinde bulunmas\u0131, halk\u0131n tek ge\u00e7im kayna\u011f\u0131n\u0131n f\u0131nd\u0131k olmas\u0131 ve bunun de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesinin icap etti\u011fi de dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaza %15 oran\u0131nda objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
8. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi; hissedarlardan F.O.nun pay\u0131n\u0131 dava tarihinden \u00f6nce devretmesi nedeniyle bu daval\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n reddine, di\u011fer daval\u0131lar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kabul\u00fcne, kabul karar\u0131 verilen daval\u0131lar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin 138.118,29 TL olarak tespitine, bu daval\u0131lar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden acele elkoyma dosyas\u0131 ile \u00f6denen 104.531,61 TL’nin mahsubu ile bakiye 33.586,68 TL kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin Ziraat Bankas\u0131 Ak\u00e7akoca \u015eubesi taraf\u0131ndan h\u00fckm\u00fcn kesinle\u015fmesi beklenmeksizin daval\u0131lara \u00f6denmesine ve 33.586,68 TL fark bedele 25\/4\/2014 tarihinden karar tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal faiz uygulanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca 1.500 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilen daval\u0131lardan al\u0131narak DS\u0130’ye verilmesine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvurucunun temyiz istemini inceleyen Yarg\u0131tay 5. Hukuk Dairesince (Yarg\u0131tay Dairesi) 18\/3\/2019 tarihinde karar onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Onama karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde kapama f\u0131nd\u0131k bah\u00e7esi niteli\u011findeki ta\u015f\u0131nmaza net f\u0131nd\u0131k geliri esas al\u0131narak bilimsel yolla de\u011fer bi\u00e7ilmesinde ve tespit edilen bedelin bloke ettirilerek h\u00fckm\u00fcn kesinle\u015fmesi beklenmeden daval\u0131 tarafa \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesinde bir isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 6\/5\/2019 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 28\/5\/2019 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ba\u015fvuru, s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. 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
A. M\u00fclkiyet Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
1. Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma Bedelinin D\u00fc\u015f\u00fck Belirlendi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucu, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n\u0131n zorla kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak kamula\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmadan da bu havzadan su \u00fcretilebilece\u011fini ve suyun bedelinden hissesi oran\u0131nda kendisine bedel verilebilece\u011fini, bunun yan\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 yerine ba\u015fka ta\u015f\u0131nmaz da verilebilece\u011fini ancak di\u011fer y\u00f6ntemler kullan\u0131lmadan bedel tespiti ve tescil davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmi\u015ftir. Ayn\u0131 b\u00f6lgede Melen \u00c7ay\u0131’n\u0131n do\u011fu taraf\u0131ndaki ba\u015fvuruya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 i\u00e7in m\u00b2 fiyat\u0131 34,79 TL olarak belirlendi\u011fi h\u00e2lde bat\u0131 taraf\u0131ndaki ta\u015f\u0131nmaz i\u00e7in m\u00b2 fiyat\u0131n\u0131n 60 TL belirlendi\u011fini ve 34,79 TL’nin sadece 3 m\u00b3 \u015febeke suyuna denk geldi\u011fini, idarenin ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki sudan i\u00e7me suyu ve elektrik \u00fcretmek yoluyla y\u0131llarca gelir elde edece\u011fini, yap-i\u015flet-devret modelinde oldu\u011fu gibi su ve elektrik \u00fcretimi yap\u0131ld\u0131k\u00e7a kendisine pay verilmesi gerekti\u011fini, ta\u015f\u0131nmazdan kendisinin ve daha sonra \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n\u0131n da faydalanaca\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011funu ve ger\u00e7ek bedeli yans\u0131tmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvuru, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
14. Anayasa Mahkemesi, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferini yans\u0131tmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki \u015fik\u00e2yetleri daha \u00f6nce \u00e7e\u015fitli kararlar\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde incelemi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda Anayasa Mahkemesi Mehmet Akdo\u011fan ve di\u011ferleri (B. No: 2013\/817, 19\/12\/2013), Mukadder Sa\u011flam ve di\u011ferleri (B. No: 2013\/2511, 22\/1\/2015), Abd\u00fclkerim \u00c7akmak ve di\u011ferleri (B. No: 2014\/1964, 23\/2\/2017), Kamil Darbaz ve Gmo Yap\u0131 Grup End. San. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. (B. No: 2015\/12563, 24\/5\/2018) ve Ali Ta\u015fgeldi (B. No: 2018\/30814, 16\/11\/2021) kararlar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu kararlarda, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz bedelinin tespitinin teknik ve uzmanl\u0131k gerektirmesi nedeniyle kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bedelinin tespitinin uzman mahkemelerin ve Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n bu konudaki uzman dairelerinin yetki ve g\u00f6revinde oldu\u011funu, Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revinin kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti y\u00f6nteminin ger\u00e7ek bedelin \u00f6denmesini temin edip etmedi\u011fini incelemekten ibaret oldu\u011funu vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00d6te yandan Anayasa Mahkemesinin bir temyiz mercii olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na, inceleme yetkisinin s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011funa ve bir temyiz mercii gibi hareket ederek mahkeme kararlar\u0131n\u0131 her y\u00f6n\u00fcyle hukuka uygunluk denetimine tabi tutmayaca\u011f\u0131na dikkat \u00e7ekmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte Anayasa’n\u0131n 46. maddesine ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferin kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli olarak \u00f6denmesi m\u00fclkiyetten yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131lan malikler i\u00e7in anayasal bir g\u00fcvencedir. Bu madde \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Anayasa’n\u0131n 13. ve 35. maddelerine g\u00f6re m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc olabilmesi i\u00e7in ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferin \u00f6denmesini sa\u011flayabilmek amac\u0131yla gerekli usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin etkili bir bi\u00e7imde uygulanmas\u0131 ve mahkemelerin ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e ile ger\u00e7ek de\u011feri belirlemeleri gerekir.<\/p>\n
15. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucu, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmadan da bu havzadan su \u00fcretilebilece\u011fini ve sudan elde edilen bedelden kendisine hissesi oran\u0131nda bedel \u00f6denebilece\u011fini, bunun yan\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 yerine ba\u015fka ta\u015f\u0131nmaz da verilebilece\u011fini ifade etmektedir. Kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n artan su ihtiyac\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yap\u0131lacak projeler kapsam\u0131nda ortaya konulacak y\u00f6ntem ve t\u00fcr\u00fc belirleme konusunda geni\u015f bir takdir haklar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Kald\u0131 ki 4\/11\/1983 tarihli ve 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma Kanunu’nda belirlenen kamula\u015ft\u0131rmaya ili\u015fkin kural ve y\u00f6ntemlere uygun i\u015flem yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan somut ba\u015fvuruda \u00fczerinde durulmas\u0131 gereken konu, ba\u015fvurucunun ta\u015f\u0131nmazdan yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na yol a\u00e7an m\u00fcdahalenin yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 olumsuz sonucun ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek bedelinin \u00f6denmek suretiyle ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131l\u0131p kald\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvurucu, belirlenen m\u00b2 de\u011ferinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck olarak hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporunda, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fccavir alan s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda oldu\u011fu ve belediye hizmetlerinden yararlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Arsa vasf\u0131 g\u00f6stermeyen, kapama f\u0131nd\u0131k bah\u00e7esi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu belirlenen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bedeli il\u00e7e tar\u0131m m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc verileri dikkate al\u0131narak net gelir metodu uygulanmak suretiyle hesaplanm\u0131\u015f ve \u00e7\u0131plak m\u00b2 de\u011feri 30,25 TL olarak belirlenmi\u015ftir. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferini etkileyen Ak\u00e7akoca, Karasu ve Kocaeli plajlar\u0131na yak\u0131n konumda olmas\u0131 ve rafting sporunun yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00fczerg\u00e2h \u00fczerinde bulunmas\u0131, halk\u0131n tek ge\u00e7im kayna\u011f\u0131n\u0131n f\u0131nd\u0131k olmas\u0131 ve bunun de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi hususlar\u0131 da dikkate al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f; ta\u015f\u0131nmaza %15 oran\u0131nda objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 uygulanm\u0131\u015f ve sonu\u00e7 olarak m\u00b2 de\u011feri 34,79 TL hesaplanarak toplam de\u011ferinin 138.118,29 TL oldu\u011fu belirlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucu ayn\u0131 b\u00f6lgede Melen \u00c7ay\u0131’n\u0131n do\u011fu taraf\u0131ndaki bireysel ba\u015fvuruya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 i\u00e7in m\u00b2 fiyat\u0131n\u0131n 34,79 TL olarak belirlendi\u011fi h\u00e2lde bat\u0131 taraf\u0131ndaki ta\u015f\u0131nmaz i\u00e7in m\u00b2 fiyat\u0131n\u0131n 60 TL olarak belirlendi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f ise de her iki ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ayn\u0131 konumda ve niteliklerde oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterecek \u015fekilde iddias\u0131n\u0131 temellendirmemi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla teknik nitelikte olan ve 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da yer verilen y\u00f6nteme uygun \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lan bilirki\u015fi raporundaki hesaplaman\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek bedelini yans\u0131tmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir de\u011ferlendirme ve tespitte bulunmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi de bilirki\u015fi raporunu uygun bulmu\u015f ve raporda belirlenen bedel do\u011frultusunda h\u00fck\u00fcm kurmu\u015ftur. Sonu\u00e7 olarak h\u00fckmedilen kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi orant\u0131l\u0131 k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve m\u00fcdahalenin ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 kamu yarar\u0131 ile ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 aras\u0131nda olmas\u0131 gereken adil dengenin bozulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
2. Aleyhine Vek\u00e2let \u00dccretine H\u00fckmedilmesinin Haks\u0131z Oldu\u011funa \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu, al\u0131nan vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin haks\u0131z oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
20. Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesi (A\u0130HM) kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti ve tescil davalar\u0131nda m\u00fclk sahibi aleyhine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi \u015fik\u00e2yetini Musa Tarhan\/T\u00fcrkiye (B. No: 12055\/17, 23\/10\/2018) karar\u0131nda incelemi\u015ftir. A\u0130HM \u00f6ncelikle ba\u015fvurucunun kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelini k\u0131smen azaltan, masraf olarak \u00f6denen para tutar\u0131n\u0131n Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u2019ne (S\u00f6zle\u015fme) ek (1) No.lu Protokol’\u00fcn 1. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda m\u00fclk te\u015fkil etti\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Musa Tarhan\/T\u00fcrkiye, \u00a7 72). Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeline ili\u015fkin davalar ile b\u00f6yle bir y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck i\u00e7ermeyen davalar aras\u0131ndaki farka dikkat \u00e7ekilmi\u015ftir. AH\u0130M ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denecek kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin belirlendi\u011fi davalarda devletin bir elle verdi\u011fini yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin tahsili yoluyla di\u011fer bir elle almas\u0131n\u0131n asl\u0131nda bir paradoks olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Musa Tarhan\/T\u00fcrkiye, \u00a7 78). A\u0130HM’e g\u00f6re daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n yarg\u0131lama masraflar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6demesinin me\u015fru bir amac\u0131 olsa da somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun kaybeden taraf olarak nitelendirilmesi zor g\u00f6z\u00fckmektedir (Musa Tarhan\/T\u00fcrkiye, \u00a7 80). AH\u0130M taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilirken (Musa Tarhan\/T\u00fcrkiye, \u00a7\u00a7 88, 89) giderim olarak aleyhe h\u00fckmedilen vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin g\u00fcncellenen bedel tutar\u0131ndaki maddi tazminat\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Musa Tarhan\/T\u00fcrkiye,\u00a7 94).<\/p>\n
21. Anayasa Mahkemesi ise Sadettin Ekiz (B. No: 2016\/9364, 9\/5\/2019) karar\u0131nda kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti ve tescili davas\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz maliki aleyhine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesinin kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinde \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde azalmaya yol a\u00e7mas\u0131 nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
22. Yarg\u0131tay Dairesi kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedel ve tescil davalar\u0131n\u0131n kabul ile sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sahibi malik aleyhine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihad\u0131n\u0131 (bir\u00e7ok karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. Yarg\u0131tay 5. Hukuk Dairesi, E.2017\/30560, K.2019\/11254, 30\/5\/2019) de\u011fi\u015ftirmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan i\u00e7tihat de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fine ili\u015fkin ilk geli\u015fme Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu (HGK\/Kurul) karar\u0131yla ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015ftir. Kurulun 14\/5\/2019 tarihli karar\u0131nda \u00f6ncelikle Musa Tarhan\/T\u00fcrkiye karar\u0131nda yer alan tespitlere yer verilmi\u015f, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma i\u015flemi sonras\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan davada ta\u015f\u0131nmaz malikinin daval\u0131 s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131 kanuni d\u00fczenleme sonucu do\u011frudan kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kararda kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedel ve tescil davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul karar\u0131yla sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131 durumunda malike idare lehine vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti \u00f6deme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc getirilmesinin vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti miktar\u0131 kadar eksik kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli \u00f6denmesi sonucunu do\u011furaca\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Son olarak belirtilen uygulama sonucunda kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin eksik \u00f6denmesiyle Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 46. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen ger\u00e7ek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6denmesi ilkesinin ihlal edilece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Devam eden s\u00fcre\u00e7te Dairenin, A\u0130HM’in Musa Tarhan\/T\u00fcrkiye ve Anayasa Mahkemesinin Sadettin Ekiz karar\u0131na at\u0131f yapmak suretiyle yerle\u015fik i\u00e7tihad\u0131n\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirerek kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedel ve tescil davas\u0131nda malik lehine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmemesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna vard\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. (bir\u00e7ok karar aras\u0131ndan bkz. Yarg\u0131tay 5. Hukuk Dairesi, E.2018\/3310, K.2019\/11688, 18\/6\/2019). \u00d6te yandan Daire, kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedel ve tescil davalar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi h\u00e2linde kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak malik aleyhine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmemesi gerekti\u011fini i\u00e7tihat etmi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer bir anlat\u0131mla yeni i\u00e7tihad\u0131yla birlikte Dairenin bedel ve tescil davalar\u0131nda vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeline oran\u0131n\u0131 dikkate almaks\u0131z\u0131n malik aleyhine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmemesi gerekti\u011fine karar verdi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Mehmet Komutan, B. No: 2020\/10899, 30\/4\/2024, \u00a7 29).<\/p>\n
23. Kamu makamlar\u0131 kamula\u015ft\u0131rma yoluyla, Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. ve 46. maddelerine dayal\u0131 olarak kamu yarar\u0131 gere\u011fi ihtiya\u00e7 duyulan bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 zorla edinmektedir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede yine ayn\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcmler uyar\u0131nca ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek bedeli m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmek durumundad\u0131r. Kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferinin belirlenmesi ise ilke olarak kamu makamlar\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcndedir. Bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen idari ve yarg\u0131sal s\u00fcre\u00e7lerdeki masraflar\u0131n ise ancak hakl\u0131 g\u00f6sterilebilecek belirli \u015fartlar\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2linde m\u00fclk sahibine y\u00fckletilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6r\u00fclebilir. Aksi h\u00e2lde yani bu masraflar\u0131n her durumda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde m\u00fclk sahibine y\u00fckletilmesi ba\u015fvurucuya a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklenmesine yol a\u00e7abilece\u011fi gibi kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin ger\u00e7ek de\u011feri \u00fczerinden \u00f6denmesini de engellemi\u015f olur. Anayasa Mahkemesi, haks\u0131z yere davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131na sebebiyet veren veya dava s\u0131ras\u0131nda kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n gereksiz yere masraf yapmas\u0131na yol a\u00e7an ilgili taraf\u0131n yarg\u0131lama giderlerini \u00f6demekle sorumlu tutulmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcdahaleyi orant\u0131l\u0131 k\u0131labilece\u011fini kabul etmektedir (Mehmet Komutan \u00a7 30).<\/p>\n
24. Somut olayda DS\u0130, maliklerle uzla\u015fma sa\u011flanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti ve tescil davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama neticesinde acele elkoyma karar\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilen daval\u0131lar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden belirlenen kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin 104.531,61 TL oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Oysa ki kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti ve tesciline ili\u015fkin davada davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilen daval\u0131lar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden belirlenen kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli 138.118,29 TL’dir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin tespiti ve tescili davas\u0131nda belirlenen kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli daha y\u00fcksek oldu\u011fundan ba\u015fvurucunun davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131na sebebiyet verdi\u011fi s\u00f6ylenemez.<\/p>\n
25. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun sat\u0131n alma usul\u00fcndeki bedeli kabul etmedi\u011fi olayda, Mahkemece kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli olarak acele elkoyma davas\u0131nda belirlenen miktardan daha y\u00fcksek bir bedelin tespit edilmesi ba\u015fvurucunun idarenin teklifini kabul etmemekte haks\u0131z olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6stermektedir. A\u00e7\u0131klanan tespite ra\u011fmen ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferin alt\u0131nda \u00f6denmesine sebebiyet vermi\u015ftir. Bu bilgiler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedeli olarak Anayasa’n\u0131n 46. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ger\u00e7ek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6dendi\u011fi hususu tespit edilemedi\u011finden ba\u015fvurucunun ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin Anayasa’n\u0131n 13., 35. ve 46. maddeleri ile 2942 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da belirtilen usule uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanunilik ilkesini ihlal etti\u011fi kanaatine ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Mehmet Komutan \u00a7 32). Somut olay y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de bu karardan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
26. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle aleyhe vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
B. Makul S\u00fcrede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130hlal Edildi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130ddia<\/p>\n
27. Anayasa Mahkemesi, olay ve olgular\u0131 somut ba\u015fvuru ile benzer nitelikte olan Veysi Ado ([GK], B. No: 2022\/100837, 27\/4\/2023) karar\u0131nda uygulanacak anayasal ilkeleri belirlemi\u015ftir. Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede Anayasa Mahkemesi 9\/1\/2013 tarihli ve 6384 say\u0131l\u0131 Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Mahkemesine Yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Baz\u0131 Ba\u015fvurular\u0131n Tazminat \u00d6denmek Suretiyle \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne Dair Kanun’un ge\u00e7ici 2. maddesinde 28\/3\/2023 tarihli ve 7445 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 40. maddesi ile yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fe g\u00f6re 9\/3\/2023 tarihi (bu tarih d\u00e2hil) itibar\u0131yla derdest olan, yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131n makul s\u00fcrede sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddialar\u0131yla yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurulara ili\u015fkin olarak Tazminat Komisyonuna ba\u015fvuru yolu t\u00fcketilmeden yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvurunun incelenmesinin bireysel ba\u015fvurunun ikincil niteli\u011fi ile ba\u011fda\u015fmayaca\u011f\u0131 neticesine varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan an\u0131lan kararda a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerden ve ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7tan ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddia y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer kabul edilebilirlik \u015fartlar\u0131 incelenmeksizin ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
28. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurunun bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti, maddi ve manevi tazminata h\u00fckmedilmesi talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
30. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda aleyhe vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi sebebiyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ihlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Olayda ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan etkin giderim yolu, tazminat olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Eski h\u00e2le getirme kural\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ihlalin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucuya maddi zarar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda net 1.500 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. 1. Kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlenmesi dolay\u0131s\u0131yla 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
2. Aleyhe vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
3. Makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n ba\u015fvuru yollar\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcketilmemesi nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n aleyhe vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Ba\u015fvurucuya net 1.500 TL maddi tazminat \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, tazminata ili\u015fkin di\u011fer taleplerin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. 364,60 TL har\u00e7tan olu\u015fan yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 21\/5\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 21\/5\/2024 tarihli ve 2019\/21192 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 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 H\u0130LM\u0130 KOCABEY BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/21192) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 21\/5\/2024 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL \u00a0 \u00a0 Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Olcay \u00d6ZCAN Ba\u015fvurucu : Hilmi KOCABEY \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru; kamula\u015ft\u0131rma bedelinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck belirlenmesi ve aleyhe vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesi nedeniyle de makul s\u00fcrede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. D\u00fczce’nin Ak\u00e7akoca il\u00e7esi Dilaver k\u00f6y\u00fcnde bulunan f\u0131nd\u0131k bah\u00e7esi niteli\u011findeki 5293,41 m\u00b2 y\u00fcz \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcml\u00fc ta\u015f\u0131nmazda ba\u015fvurucunun 1\/4 hissesi bulunmaktad\u0131r. 3. Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan B\u00fcy\u00fck \u0130stanbul \u0130\u00e7me Suyu II. Merhale Projesi kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lacak kamula\u015ft\u0131rma i\u015flemleri i\u00e7in 1996 y\u0131l\u0131nda kamu yarar\u0131 karar\u0131 al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bakanlar Kurulu da 2012 y\u0131l\u0131nda bu proje kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lacak Melen Baraj\u0131’n\u0131n kum malzemesinin temini i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucunun hissesi bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n da aralar\u0131nda oldu\u011fu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n acele usulde kamula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. 4. \u00c7evre ve Orman Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Devlet Su \u0130\u015fleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (DS\u0130) taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen 19\/4\/2013 tarihli k\u0131ymet takdir raporunda, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00b2 de\u011ferinin 25,34 TL oldu\u011fu ve %30 objektif de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131 ile birlikte toplam m\u00b2 de\u011ferinin 33,50 TL olaca\u011f\u0131 ifade edilmi\u015ftir. 5. DS\u0130’nin …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,535],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10677","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n