a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process

decision of zmir-Çe me Highway and the development plans that it is based on. Spatial
distribution of these actions is shown in Fig: 4.6.
4.3.1.1. Actions Regarding Annulment of Expropriation of Highways
and Development Plans That It’s Based On: Development of
the Process and Results 71 – (Balçova)
Defendant parties of the action are General directorate of Highways, Greater
Municipality of zmir and Municipality of Balçova. All of the plaintiffs of all 181
actions are private persons and total numbers of plaintiffs are 315. Situation of the plots
which are subjects of actions and the present built-up residential area existing in the
highway zone are shown in Fig: 4.6.. As also seen on the map, different actions were
proceeded by different flats existing in the same apartment house on the same plot. (See
Fig.: 4.6 and Fig.:4.7)
Subject of actions is the annulment of expropriation decision dated 11.02.1993
and numbered 6 regarding the expropriation of the plots existing in highway zone for
the construction of zmir Ring-Road/Aydın Expressway (Part 2.1A,2.1B) and the
development plans scaled 1/5000 and 1/1000 that the expropriation decision based on.
It’s not known if 25 of the plaintiffs had lawyers or not. On the other hand, 156
actions were defended by 3 different lawyers. 2 of these lawyers were the counsels of 2
actions (1 action for each) and counsels of 153 actions were the same. Thus, statements
of counsels of these 153 actions have been evaluated.
4.3.1.2. Claims of Parties in Litigation Process
Claims of Plaintiff Parties:
In the 12 paged application text of plaintiffs parties’ lawyer, it was stated that,
expropriation decision and development plans that it was based on were not appropriate
71 Statements have been taken from the court files of 1st Administrative Court e:1995/799; e:1995/812;
4th Administrative Court e:1995/851; 2nd Administrative Court e:1995/891; 3rd Administrative Court
e:1995/803; e:1996/760. In total, different statements were used that have been obtained during detailed
examination of court files. However, in such a concentrated litigation process, it has been noticed that,
mostly, there has been no difference in the statements of lawyers’ petitions, defenses of parties, expertise
reports or court decisions.
133