- Civil Chamber 2020/1024 E. , 2021/2377 K.
“Justice Text”
COURT: … REGIONAL COURT OF COURT 6th LAW DEPARTMENT
TYPE OF ACTION: GENERATION CHARGING IN THE DEED
In the genus correction case between the parties, upon the defendant’s appeal of the decision of the court regarding the acceptance of the case, the decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Regional Court of Justice regarding the annulment of the decision of the Court of First Instance and the rejection of the case was appealed by the attorney of the plaintiff in due time; The report prepared by the Investigation Judge … was read, his explanations were heard, the file was examined, the necessary was discussed and considered;
-DECISION-
The case is about the request for a change in the title deed.
The plaintiff stated that while his immovable, parcel number 668, which he owned was registered as a “wooden house” in the title deed, renovation works were carried out in the region in 2011 within the scope of article 3402/22-a, the property registered in his name was changed to parcel no. and partially destroyed old stone house and its annexes, that the genus correction was made without his knowledge and consent, that he applied to the Finike cadastral unit with a petition dated 22/08/2013 and requested that the mistake be corrected. Administrative Court filed a lawsuit within the scope of file numbered 2013/1410, but the case was rejected in terms of duty on the grounds that the dispute should be resolved in judicial jurisdiction, and as a result of the appeal examination, it was approved by the decision of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State with the decision of 2014/1082 and 2015/5759 dated 10/12/2015. Claiming that it was finalized on 12/02/2016, 340 lot 38 parcels demanded the cancellation of the administrative procedure for the registration of the immovable as “land” by changing the quality of the “wooden house” in the land registry and the registration of the quality of the immovable as “wooden house” in the land registry.
Defendant, Article 22-A of 3402 SK. He demanded the dismissal of the lawsuit in terms of merits and hostility, stating that it was a wooden house of the determined type and the house on the ground was defined as a “Stone house” as the plaintiff insisted.
The Court decided to accept the case as a result of the trial, after the Court of Appeals decided that the Judicial Judiciary is responsible for the resolution of the dispute, which was applied for the determination of the authority by an interim decision. The decision of the Court of First Instance was annulled and the case was dismissed on the grounds that it was an administrative duty.
As known; In accordance with Article 158 of the Constitution, the Court of Disputes (NYM) has been authorized to definitively resolve the conflicts of duty and judgment between the judicial and administrative judicial authorities, the same issue has been explained in Article 1 of the Law No. organizations and individuals are obliged to comply with the court decisions and to implement them without delay”, on the other hand, in article 29/1, the provisions of “the decisions of the disputed court are final”.
In the concrete case; Although breed correction requests remain within the scope of administrative duty; According to the final decision of the Dispute Court dated 24.03.2018 and numbered 2018/74 and Decision 2018/140, it was decided that the application of the Demre Civil Court of First Instance was rejected, stating that the judicial judiciary is responsible for the resolution of the dispute. It is wrong to reach a conclusion by ignoring the provisions of the Court of Appeals and the decision of the Dispute Court.
As such; While it is necessary to examine the merits of the work, it is not correct to make a written decision with an erroneous evaluation.
With the acceptance of the appellant’s objections, which are valid in terms of the mentioned direction, the decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of Antalya Regional Court of Justice is OVERFINED, pursuant to Article 371/1-a of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, 373/2 of the HMK. It was unanimously decided on 19/04/2021 that the file be sent to the 6th Civil Chamber of the Antalya Regional Court of Justice, which made the decision, and that the advance fee be returned to the appellant.