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
A. B. VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/11909)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 7\/1\/2025<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\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
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Recai AKYEL<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Muhterem \u0130NCE<\/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\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekilleri<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Tuncay AKINCI<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; tapu iptal ve tescil talebinin kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm ve hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden, tazminat talebinin ise zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru 9\/3\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyonca ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi, bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR <\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
5. 16\/8\/1947 tarihli k\u00f6k tapu kay\u0131tl\u0131 9.190 m\u00b2 y\u00fcz \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcme sahip ta\u015f\u0131nmaz ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisi S. k\u0131z\u0131 F.B. ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. 24\/3\/1987 tarihinde kesinle\u015fen kadastro uygulamas\u0131 sonucunda \u0130zmir’in Karaburun il\u00e7esi \u0130skele Mahallesi’nde bulunan 158 ada 21 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz 16\/8\/1947 tarihli k\u00f6k tapu kayd\u0131na dayan\u0131larak ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisi F.B. ad\u0131na, ayn\u0131 yerde bulunan 158 ada 15 ve 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar ise Maliye Hazinesi (Hazine) ad\u0131na tespit ve tescil edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
A. 158 Ada 15 ve 22 Parsel Say\u0131l\u0131 Ta\u015f\u0131nmazlara \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130lk Dava S\u00fcreci<\/p>\n
7. K.B., C.B. ve N.B. 23\/11\/1990 tarihinde Hazine aleyhine Karaburun Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Davac\u0131lar bu davada 158 ada 15 ve 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n murisleri F.B.ye ait k\u00f6k tapu kayd\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve kendi adlar\u0131na tescil g\u00f6ren ayn\u0131 yerdeki 21 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz ile bir b\u00fct\u00fcn oldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde Hazine ad\u0131na tespit g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
8. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 27\/1\/1995 tarihinde davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, 22 No.lu parselin tamam\u0131n\u0131n, 15 No.lu parselin ise 2.102 m\u00b2lik k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptaline ve veraset ilam\u0131ndaki paylar\u0131 oran\u0131nda davac\u0131lar ad\u0131na tesciline karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde 16\/8\/1947 tarihli k\u00f6k tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n kadastro s\u0131ras\u0131nda yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131kla 21 No.lu parsele uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, asl\u0131nda dayanak tapunun 22 No.lu parselin tamam\u0131 ile 15 No.lu parselin 2.102 m\u00b2lik k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 kapsad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Hazinenin temyiz talebini de\u011ferlendiren Yarg\u0131tay 1. Hukuk Dairesi 27\/6\/1995 tarihinde yerel bilirki\u015filerin tapunun tam s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6steremedi\u011fi ve s\u00f6zlerinin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7\u00f6zmeye yeterli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, t\u00fcm kom\u015fu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bilirki\u015fi ve tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131n\u0131n denetlenmedi\u011fi ve davac\u0131lar\u0131n tapusuna ili\u015fkin kroki bulunabilece\u011fi h\u00e2lde bu y\u00f6nde ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7eleriyle karar\u0131 bozmu\u015ftur. Bozma sonras\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada 158 ada 15 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n reddedildi\u011fi ve verilen karar\u0131n Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n 17\/4\/2000 tarihli karar\u0131 ile onanarak kesinle\u015fti\u011fi, 158 ada 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz y\u00f6n\u00fcnden a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n ise takip edilmemesi nedeniyle 16\/9\/2003 tarihinde 18\/6\/1927 tarihli ve 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 m\u00fclga Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 409. maddesi uyar\u0131nca a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (bkz. \u00a7 14).<\/p>\n
B. 158 Ada 21 Parsel Say\u0131l\u0131 Ta\u015f\u0131nmaza \u0130li\u015fkin Dava S\u00fcreci<\/p>\n
10. Hazine 12\/6\/1995 tarihinde muris F.B. miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 aleyhine Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Hazine, 15 ve 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar hakk\u0131nda daval\u0131larca a\u00e7\u0131lan di\u011fer davada k\u00f6k tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisi ad\u0131na tescil edilen 158 ada 21 No.lu parsele uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fini belirterek 21 No.lu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile Hazine ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 6\/5\/2014 tarihinde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, 21 No.lu parselin tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptaline ve Hazine ad\u0131na tesciline, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde bulunan 35 adet zeytin a\u011fac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131lardan N.B.ye ait oldu\u011funun tapunun beyanlar hanesinde g\u00f6sterilmesine karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde, k\u00f6k tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n 21 No.lu parsele uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz ta\u015fl\u0131k, kayal\u0131k durumda oldu\u011fundan zilyetlikle kazan\u0131m ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n da olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve daval\u0131lardan N.B. taraf\u0131ndan dikilen 45-50 ya\u015flar\u0131ndaki zeytin a\u011fa\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131 kapsamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Taraflar\u0131n temyiz talebini de\u011ferlendiren Yarg\u0131tay 16. Hukuk Dairesi (16. Hukuk Dairesi) 2\/10\/2018 tarihinde daval\u0131lar\u0131n tapu kayd\u0131na de\u011fil zilyetli\u011fe dayand\u0131klar\u0131 ve Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesince zilyetlik ko\u015fullar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden eksik inceleme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle karar\u0131 bozmu\u015ftur. Yap\u0131lan karar d\u00fczeltme talebini ise 28\/1\/2020 tarihinde reddetmi\u015ftir. Bu karar sonras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamaya ili\u015fkin bireysel ba\u015fvuru dosyas\u0131 ve eklerinde herhangi bir bilgi ve belge bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fka bir tespit yap\u0131lamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
C. Bireysel Ba\u015fvuruya \u0130li\u015fkin Dava S\u00fcreci<\/p>\n
13. K\u00f6k muris F.B.nin miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 ba\u015fvurucular ile di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lar 31\/12\/2014 tarihinde Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde Hazine aleyhine 158 ada 15 ve 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali ve tescili, olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde 22\/11\/2001 tarihli ve 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 1007. maddesi uyar\u0131nca tazminat \u00f6denmesi talebiyle dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 8\/9\/2015 tarihinde 158 ada 15 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmas\u0131 ve 158 ada 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz y\u00f6n\u00fcnden hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin ge\u00e7mi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedenleriyle tapu iptali ve tescil talebini reddetmi\u015f, tazminat talebini ise zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcrelerinin dolmas\u0131 nedeniyle reddetmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde:<\/p>\n
i. E.2000\/143 ve K.2003\/120 say\u0131l\u0131 dosyada davac\u0131 N.B. ve davac\u0131lar\u0131n murislerince k\u00f6k tapu kayd\u0131na dayan\u0131larak a\u00e7\u0131lan tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131nda 158 ada 15 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n reddedildi\u011fi ve verilen karar\u0131n Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n 17\/4\/2000 tarihli karar\u0131 ile onanarak kesinle\u015fti\u011fi, dava konusu 158 ada 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz y\u00f6n\u00fcnden a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n ise takip edilmemesi nedeniyle 16\/9\/2003 tarihinde 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 m\u00fclga Kanun’un 409. maddesi uyar\u0131nca a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi,<\/p>\n
ii. 158 ada 15 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm bulundu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 114. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (i) bendi uyar\u0131nca reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi,<\/p>\n
iii. Dava konusu parsellere ait tutanaklar\u0131n itiraz edilmeyerek 24\/3\/1987 tarihinde kesinle\u015fti\u011fi, 158 ada 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi, bu davan\u0131n kadastrodan \u00f6nceki hukuki sebebe dayan\u0131larak a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle 21\/6\/1987 tarihli ve 3402 say\u0131l\u0131 Kadastro Kanunu’nun 12. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda belirtilen on y\u0131ll\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin ge\u00e7ti\u011fi,<\/p>\n
iv. Davac\u0131lar\u0131n 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 1007. maddesi gere\u011fi tazminat talebinde bulunduklar\u0131, tapu sicilinin tutulmas\u0131 nedeniyle zarar g\u00f6renlerin 11\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu’nun 146. maddesi gere\u011fince on y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinde dava a\u00e7abilecekleri ancak dava tarihi itibar\u0131yla bu s\u00fcrenin ge\u00e7ti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucular ve di\u011fer davac\u0131lar\u0131n temyiz talebi 16. Hukuk Dairesince yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f ve karar 19\/3\/2019 tarihinde onanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 16. Hukuk Dairesi yap\u0131lan karar d\u00fczeltme talebini 28\/1\/2020 tarihinde reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Nihai karar, ba\u015fvuruculara 10\/2\/2020 tarihinde tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130LG\u0130L\u0130 HUKUK<\/p>\n
A. Ulusal Hukuk<\/p>\n
1. \u0130lgili Mevzuat<\/p>\n
17. 3402 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ”Kadastro tutanaklar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesi ve hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 12. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131 ilgili k\u0131s\u0131mlar\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
” 30 g\u00fcnl\u00fck ilan s\u00fcresi ge\u00e7tikten sonra, dava a\u00e7\u0131lmayan kadastro tutanaklar\u0131na ait s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rma ve tespitler kesinle\u015fir.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Bu tutanaklarda belirtilen haklara, s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rma ve tespitlere ait tutanaklar\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fi tarihten itibaren on y\u0131l ge\u00e7tikten sonra, kadastrodan \u00f6nceki hukuki sebeplere dayanarak itiraz olunamaz ve dava a\u00e7\u0131lamaz.<\/p>\n
…”<\/p>\n
18. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ”Dava \u015fartlar\u0131” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 114. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (i) bendi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
”Ayn\u0131 davan\u0131n, daha \u00f6nceden kesin h\u00fckme ba\u011flanmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131.”<\/p>\n
19. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ”Dava \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 115. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131s\u0131mlar\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
”(1) Mahkeme, dava \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n mevcut olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davan\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda kendili\u011finden ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131r. Taraflar da dava \u015fart\u0131 noksanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 her zaman ileri s\u00fcrebilirler.<\/p>\n
\u00a0(2) Mahkeme, dava \u015fart\u0131 noksanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit ederse davan\u0131n usulden reddine karar verir. Ancak, dava \u015fart\u0131 noksanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n giderilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn ise bunun tamamlanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in kesin s\u00fcre verir. Bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde dava \u015fart\u0131 noksanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 giderilmemi\u015fse davay\u0131 dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fu sebebiyle usulden reddeder.<\/p>\n
…”<\/p>\n
20. 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ”Sorumluluk” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 1007. maddesinin ilgili k\u0131s\u0131mlar \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
”Tapu sicilinin tutulmas\u0131ndan do\u011fan b\u00fct\u00fcn zararlardan Devlet sorumludur.<\/p>\n
Devlet, zarar\u0131n do\u011fmas\u0131nda kusuru bulunan g\u00f6revlilere r\u00fccu eder.<\/p>\n
Devletin sorumlulu\u011funa ili\u015fkin davalar, tapu sicilinin bulundu\u011fu yer mahkemesinde g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr. Ayn\u0131 davan\u0131n, daha \u00f6nceden kesin h\u00fckme ba\u011flanmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131.”<\/p>\n
21. 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ”S\u00fcreler” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 146. maddesi \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
”Kanunda aksine bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, her alacak on y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na tabidir. ”<\/p>\n
2. Yarg\u0131tay ve B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi Kararlar\u0131<\/p>\n
22. Konu hakk\u0131nda bkz. Ya\u015far \u00c7oban [GK], B. No: 2014\/6673, 25\/7\/2017, \u00a7\u00a7 39, 40; Cengiz P\u0131rnar ve di\u011ferleri, B. No:2017\/33709, 13\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 25-33.<\/p>\n
B. Uluslararas\u0131 Hukuk<\/p>\n
23. Konu hakk\u0131nda bkz. Ya\u015far \u00c7oban, \u00a7\u00a7 41-47; Amelia Kukutara ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2019\/7923, 27\/4\/2023, \u00a7\u00a7 24-27.<\/p>\n
V. \u0130NCELEME VE GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
24. Anayasa Mahkemesinin 7\/1\/2025 tarihinde yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu toplant\u0131da ba\u015fvuru incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
A. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u0130ddialar\u0131 ve Bakanl\u0131k G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc<\/p>\n
25. Ba\u015fvurucular, murisin sat\u0131\u015f yoluyla edindi\u011fi tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n 158 ada 15 ve 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 kapsad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde kadastro s\u0131ras\u0131nda yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131kla ayn\u0131 yerde bulunan 21 No.lu parselin muris ad\u0131na tespit ve tescil edildi\u011fini ve Hazine taraf\u0131ndan 21 No.lu parselin tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan dava sonucunda bu durumun ortaya konuldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. 15 ve 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Hazine ad\u0131na olu\u015fan kayd\u0131n yolsuz oldu\u011funu ve tazminat \u00f6denmeksizin m\u00fclkten yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmi\u015ftir. Davan\u0131n kadastrodan \u00f6nceki hukuki sebebe dayan\u0131larak a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. Hazinenin an\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlarda bir hakk\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildi\u011fi h\u00e2lde hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirtmi\u015ftir. Tazminat istemi i\u00e7in 18\/11\/2009 tarihli Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu (HGK) karar\u0131na kadar herhangi bir hukuk yolunun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve ayni hakka ili\u015fkin taleplerin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011framayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmi\u015ftir. Anayasa Mahkemesinin Ya\u015far \u00c7oban ve A\u0130HM’in Durr\u00fc Mazhar \u00c7evik ve Asuman M\u00fcnire \u00c7evik Da\u011fdelen\/T\u00fcrkiye (B. No: 2705\/05, 14\/4\/2015) karar\u0131 ile zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin HGK i\u00e7tihad\u0131ndan itibaren hesaplanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine vurgu yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu gerek\u00e7elerle adil yarg\u0131lanma ve m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011finden \u015fik\u00e2yet etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
26. Bakanl\u0131k, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlara ili\u015fkin s\u00fcrecin 2003 y\u0131l\u0131nda sonu\u00e7lanmas\u0131ndan \u00e7ok sonra yap\u0131lan talep hakk\u0131nda zaman bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkinin tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim ve m\u00fclkiyet haklar\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetlerde Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, Anayasa Mahkemesi i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 ve somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n da dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
27. Ba\u015fvurucular, Bakanl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 sunduklar\u0131 beyanlar\u0131nda \u00f6nceki \u015fik\u00e2yetlerini tekrar etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
28. Ba\u015fvurucular, a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131n\u0131n kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm bulundu\u011fu ve hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin doldu\u011fu, 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 1007. maddesi uyar\u0131nca a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n ise on y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin doldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesinden \u015fik\u00e2yet etmektedir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n \u015fik\u00e2yetleri mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenecektir.<\/p>\n
29. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n ilk \u015fik\u00e2yeti 158 ada 15 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131n\u0131n kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm nedeniyle reddedilmesine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
30. Adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n en temel unsurlar\u0131ndan biri olan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcne ta\u015f\u0131yabilmek ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkili bir \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flanmas\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilmek anlam\u0131na gelir. Dava a\u00e7mak isteyen ki\u015finin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcne zarar verecek seviyeye ula\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 m\u00fcddet\u00e7e dava a\u00e7ma ko\u015fullar\u0131na s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar getirilebilir (Aktif Elektrik M\u00fch. \u0130n\u015f. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2012\/855, 26\/6\/2014, \u00a7 36).<\/p>\n
31. Dava a\u00e7ma ya da kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvuru i\u00e7in belli s\u00fcrelerin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesi, bu s\u00fcreler dava a\u00e7may\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z k\u0131lacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde k\u0131sa olmad\u0131k\u00e7a hukuki belirlilik ilkesinin bir gere\u011fidir ve mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturmaz (Remzi Durmaz, B. No: 2013\/1718, 2\/10\/2013, \u00a7 27). Ancak mahkemeler, usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131 uygularken davan\u0131n hakkaniyetine halel getirecek \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kat\u0131 \u015fekilcilikten, \u00f6te yandan kanunla \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f usul \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kalkmas\u0131na neden olacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 esneklikten ka\u00e7\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r (Kamil Ko\u00e7, B. No: 2012\/660, 7\/11\/2013, \u00a7 65).<\/p>\n
32. Somut olayda Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi, ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisleri taraf\u0131ndan 23\/11\/1990 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan tapu iptali tescil davas\u0131 sonunda 158 ada 15 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin davan\u0131n reddedildi\u011fini ve bu karar\u0131n Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n 17\/4\/2000 tarihli karar\u0131 ile onanarak kesinle\u015fti\u011fini belirtmi\u015f ve davay\u0131 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 114. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (i) bendi uyar\u0131nca kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm nedeniyle reddetmi\u015ftir. Davan\u0131n 158 ada 15 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm nedeniyle reddedilmesinin 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 114. maddesinde yer verilen kanuni bir dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r, ayr\u0131ca m\u00fcdahalenin daha evvel karara ba\u011flanarak kesinle\u015fen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n tekrar yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcne getirilmesinin \u00f6nlenmesine y\u00f6nelik me\u015fru bir amac\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu da de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Son olarak yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin hukuki g\u00fcvenlik ve belirlilik ilkeleri ba\u011flam\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilirlik s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7inde ve g\u00f6zetilen me\u015fru ama\u00e7 ile korunmak istenen hak a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan orant\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve ba\u015fvuruculara a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 k\u00fclfet y\u00fcklemedi\u011fi kanaatine var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
33. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n bir di\u011fer \u015fik\u00e2yeti 158 ada 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131n\u0131n hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre nedeniyle reddedilmesine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
34. Kadastro s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rma ve tespitlerine kar\u015f\u0131 kadastro mahkemesinde otuz g\u00fcnl\u00fck ask\u0131 ilan s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde itiraz yoluyla dava a\u00e7\u0131labilece\u011fi 3402 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte belirtilen ask\u0131 ilan s\u00fcresi ge\u00e7tikten sonra da kadastrodan \u00f6nceki hukuki sebeplere dayal\u0131 olarak en ge\u00e7 on y\u0131l i\u00e7inde genel mahkemede dava a\u00e7\u0131labilece\u011fi h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresinin on y\u0131lla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil etti\u011fi tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131zd\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu s\u0131n\u0131rlama, 3402 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 12. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131na dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan kanunilik unsurunu ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r (Ay\u015fe T\u00fcrk ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2018\/1906, 21\/4\/2021, \u00a7 26).<\/p>\n
35. 3402 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un gerek\u00e7esinde, bir t\u00fcr tasfiye d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden \u00fclkenin kadastral topo\u011frafik haritas\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mallar\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n arazi ve harita \u00fczerinde belirtilerek hukuksal durumlar\u0131n\u0131 saptamak, 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bi\u00e7imde tapu sicilini olu\u015fturmak amac\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klanmaktad\u0131r (AYM, E.1991\/9, K.1991\/36, 8\/10\/1991).<\/p>\n
36. Hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre ile kadastroya dayan\u0131larak d\u00fczenlenen planlar\u0131n ve tapu sicilleriyle belirlenmi\u015f olan hukuksal durumun kararl\u0131l\u0131k i\u00e7inde s\u00fcregelmesi ama\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin kamu yarar\u0131na dayal\u0131 me\u015fru bir amac\u0131 bulunmaktad\u0131r, ayr\u0131ca belirtilen s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde hukuki ve fiil\u00ee duruma dayan\u0131larak kullan\u0131lacak dava haklar\u0131n\u0131n on y\u0131ll\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n kamu d\u00fczeni fikrine uygun d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve tan\u0131nan s\u00fcrenin hakk\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131na da elveri\u015fli oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (bkz. AYM, E.1991\/9, K.1991\/36, 8\/10\/1991).<\/p>\n
37. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi, 158 ada 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murislerince 23\/11\/1990 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n takip edilmemesi nedeniyle 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 m\u00fclga Kanun’un 409. maddesi uyar\u0131nca 16\/9\/2003 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Bu ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin davay\u0131 3402 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 12. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca on y\u0131l i\u00e7erisinde a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle hakd\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcreden reddetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
38. \u00d6ncelikle Anayasa Mahkemesi; kadastro tespitleri sonras\u0131nda 3402 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 12. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olan hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde a\u00e7\u0131lmamas\u0131 sebebiyle reddedilen davalarla ilgili ba\u015fvurularda, bu durumun ba\u015fvurucular \u00fczerinde a\u011f\u0131r bir y\u00fck olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmesiyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir ihlal olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (bkz. Ay\u015fe T\u00fcrk ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 30; Hasan Kalender, B. No: 2017\/31122, 18\/6\/2020, \u00a7 46).<\/p>\n
39. Somut olayda 1987 tarihinde kesinle\u015fen kadastro tespitinden sonra ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murislerince 23\/11\/1990 tarihinde tapu iptali ve tescili davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu davan\u0131n devam\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda Hazine kadastro s\u0131ras\u0131nda muris ad\u0131na tespit ve tescil edilen 158 ada 21 No.lu parselin tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali ve Hazine ad\u0131na tescili istemiyle ayr\u0131 bir dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Her iki dava birlikte devam ederken ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murislerince a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n takip edilmemesi nedeniyle 16\/9\/2003 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisleri kadastro tespitinin kesinle\u015fti\u011fi tarihten itibaren 3402 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da d\u00fczenlenen on y\u0131ll\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde davaya devam etmemi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular da hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n neden takipsiz b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na veya dava a\u00e7ma s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde neden yeni bir dava a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir a\u00e7\u0131klamada bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fc\u00e7le\u015ftiren herhangi bir somut olgunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 da tespit edilememi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Ay\u015fe T\u00fcrk ve di\u011ferleri ile Hasan Kalender kararlar\u0131nda yer verilen ilkelerden ayr\u0131lmay\u0131 gerektiren bir durum olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finden tapu iptali ve tescil istemine ili\u015fkin davan\u0131n hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcreden reddedilmesi nedeniyle yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen kamu yarar\u0131 amac\u0131 ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda orant\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu, ba\u015fvurucular \u00fczerinde a\u011f\u0131r bir y\u00fck olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
40. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n son \u015fik\u00e2yeti ise 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 1007. maddesine g\u00f6re a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n on y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin doldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
41. 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 1007. maddesine g\u00f6re a\u00e7\u0131lan tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n on y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin doldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesine ili\u015fkin \u015fik\u00e2yetler, daha \u00f6nce Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan Ya\u015far \u00c7oban karar\u0131 ile incelenmi\u015f ve ilkeler ortaya koyulmu\u015ftur. An\u0131lan karara konu olayda, tapu siciline g\u00fcvenilerek sat\u0131n al\u0131nan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kadastro \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 sonucu Hazine ad\u0131na tespit ve tescili sebebiyle u\u011fran\u0131lan zarar\u0131n tazmin edilmesi istemiyle 26\/6\/2009 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lan dava on y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin ge\u00e7ti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmi\u015ftir. Kararda; esas\u0131 incelenmeden davan\u0131n s\u00fcre a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddedilmesinin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale olu\u015fturdu\u011fu, 22\/4\/1926 tarihli ve 818 say\u0131l\u0131 m\u00fclga Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu’nun 125. maddesine dayal\u0131 m\u00fcdahalenin kanuni temeli oldu\u011fu ve hukuki g\u00fcvenli\u011fin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda me\u015fru bir ama\u00e7 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Ya\u015far \u00c7oban, \u00a7\u00a7 54-63).<\/p>\n
42. Ya\u015far \u00c7oban karar\u0131nda \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan incelemede, 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 1007. maddesine dayal\u0131 tazminat davas\u0131 yolunun Yarg\u0131tay HGK’n\u0131n 18\/11\/2009 tarihli i\u00e7tihad\u0131ndan sonra etkili ve elveri\u015fli h\u00e2le geldi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle 1980 tarihli kadastro tespitine kar\u015f\u0131 on y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n beklenmesinin tazminat yolunu etkisizle\u015ftirece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla 18\/11\/2009 tarihinden \u00f6nce t\u00fcketilmesi gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine adil dengeyi bozdu\u011fu ve mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Ya\u015far \u00c7oban, \u00a7\u00a7 68-74).<\/p>\n
43. Ay\u015fe \u00c7idem Tekinda\u011f ve di\u011ferleri (B. No: 2017\/15121, 11\/12\/2019) ba\u015fvurusunda 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 1007. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda 18\/11\/2009 tarihinden \u00f6nce zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi dolmu\u015f olan tazminat talepleri hakk\u0131nda bu tarihten itibaren makul bir s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde dava a\u00e7\u0131labilece\u011finin kabul\u00fc gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Bu s\u00fcrenin ne kadar olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n derece mahkemelerinin takdirinde oldu\u011fu ancak bu y\u00f6nde bir de\u011ferlendirmeye yer verilmedi\u011fi ve dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn h\u00e2le getirebilecek \u015fekilde makul bir s\u00fcre tespiti yoluna gidilmedi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir (Ay\u015fe \u00c7idem Tekinda\u011f ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7\u00a7 44, 45). Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla somut olayda \u00fczerinde durulmas\u0131 gereken konu, Ya\u015far \u00c7oban karar\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere 18\/11\/2009 tarihinden \u00f6nce zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi dolan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n bu tarihten sonra dava a\u00e7abilmelerini m\u00fcmk\u00fcn k\u0131lacak makul bir s\u00fcre \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcp \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
44. 18\/11\/2009 tarihinden \u00f6nce zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin doldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilen davalarda Anayasa Mahkemesi, Ay\u015fe \u00c7idem Tekinda\u011f ve di\u011ferleri karar\u0131nda 18\/11\/2009 tarihinden 1 y\u0131l 10 ay 15 g\u00fcn sonra ve Mehmet Aykut Vural (B. No: 2017\/16486, 29\/1\/2020) karar\u0131nda ise 1 y\u0131l 9 ay 6 g\u00fcn sonra a\u00e7\u0131lan davalar\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesinin ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k Anayasa Mahkemesi As\u0131m Uzun ve di\u011ferleri (B. No:2018\/26593, 12\/2\/2020) karar\u0131nda 18\/11\/2009 tarihinden 4 y\u0131l 1 ay 13 g\u00fcn sonra, Bayram Hasan \u00d6zer ve R\u00fcses \u00d6zer (B. No: 17513, 3\/6\/2020) karar\u0131nda 3 y\u0131l 2 ay 13 g\u00fcn sonra ve I\u015f\u0131l Kantarc\u0131 (B. No: 2018\/17640, 14\/10\/2020)karar\u0131nda 4 y\u0131l 5 ay 10 g\u00fcn sonra a\u00e7\u0131lan davalar\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesinin ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etmedi\u011fi sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Ay\u015fe \u00c7idem Tekinda\u011f ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 45; Mehmet Aykut Vural, \u00a7 47; As\u0131m Uzun ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 42; Bayram Hasan \u00d6zer ve R\u00fcses \u00d6zer, \u00a7 28; I\u015f\u0131l Kantarc\u0131,\u00a7 40).<\/p>\n
45. Ba\u015fvuruya konu olayda ba\u015fvurucular ve di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan 31\/12\/2014 tarihinde 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 1007. maddesine dayal\u0131 olarak tazminat davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu dava, on y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmi\u015ftir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k derece mahkemeleri, davan\u0131n 18\/11\/2009 tarihinde etkili ve elveri\u015fli h\u00e2le gelen hukuk yolunun bu tarihten sonra kullan\u0131lmas\u0131na imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayacak makul bir s\u00fcrede a\u00e7\u0131l\u0131p a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir de\u011ferlendirmede bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
46. Bu nedenle 18\/11\/2009 tarihinden \u00f6nce zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi dolmu\u015f olan somut olaya konu davan\u0131n bu tarihten sonra makul bir s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde a\u00e7\u0131l\u0131p a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesi gerekmektedir. Somut olayda 18\/11\/2009 tarihinden 5 y\u0131l 1 ay 13 g\u00fcn sonra a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n makul kabul edilebilecek bir s\u00fcrede a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla 18\/11\/2009 tarihinde etkili h\u00e2le gelen hukuk yolu i\u00e7in bu s\u00fcreden sonra makul denilebilecek s\u00fcrede dava a\u00e7mayan ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n davas\u0131n\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan reddedilmesi suretiyle ba\u015fvuruculara y\u00fcklenen k\u00fclfetin orant\u0131s\u0131z oldu\u011fundan bahsedilemez. Ba\u015fvuruya konu \u015fik\u00e2yet y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kamu yarar\u0131 ile bireyin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 aras\u0131nda kurulmas\u0131 gereken adil dengenin ba\u015fvurucular aleyhine bozulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
47. 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
VI. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim 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\u015fvurucular \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA 7\/1\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 7\/1\/2025 tarihli ve 2020\/11909 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 A. B. VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/11909) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 7\/1\/2025 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Recai AKYEL \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 Muhterem \u0130NCE \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : Olcay \u00d6ZCAN Ba\u015fvurucular : Vekilleri : Av. Tuncay AKINCI \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN KONUSU 1. Ba\u015fvuru; tapu iptal ve tescil talebinin kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm ve hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden, tazminat talebinin ise zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. II. BA\u015eVURU S\u00dcREC\u0130 2. Ba\u015fvuru 9\/3\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Komisyonca ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. 3. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi, bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Bakanl\u0131k, g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc bildirmi\u015ftir. III. OLAY VE OLGULAR 4. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle olaylar \u015f\u00f6yledir: 5. 16\/8\/1947 tarihli k\u00f6k tapu kay\u0131tl\u0131 9.190 m\u00b2 y\u00fcz \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcme sahip ta\u015f\u0131nmaz ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisi S. k\u0131z\u0131 F.B. ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131d\u0131r. 6. 24\/3\/1987 tarihinde kesinle\u015fen kadastro uygulamas\u0131 sonucunda \u0130zmir’in Karaburun il\u00e7esi \u0130skele Mahallesi’nde bulunan 158 ada 21 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz 16\/8\/1947 tarihli k\u00f6k tapu kayd\u0131na dayan\u0131larak ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisi F.B. ad\u0131na, ayn\u0131 yerde bulunan 158 ada 15 ve 22 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35671","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n