a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process

with equality and relinquishment balance principles, thus, annulment of expropriation
decision and related development plans was demanded. Furthermore, it was also stated
that, there were 450 households living in E itim quarter where the highway existed and
expropriation of built-up areas did not have any public interest principle. It was
emphasized that, public interest principle was taken into consideration during location
stage of the highway’s route and a participated planning process had not been realized.
Previously planned highway route had been more agreeable because of passing through
public lands and undeveloped lands. In addition to development plans, it was also stated
that, expropriation payments realized in 1995, over the expropriation value determined
in 1993, was not fair. Public interest, planning process and <strong>evaluation</strong>s concerning
expropriation transactions, which were examined in detail by the counsel of plaintiff
parties, have been discussed in above mentioned generalization.
Claims of Defendant Parties:
In the claim of Ministry of Public Works and Settlement General Directorate of
Highways, it was stated that, appraisement procedures were realized in 1993 according
to the “decision of commencement of expropriation transactions”, payments would be
effected to bank in a month and necessary notifications were sent to property owners.
Later, it was added that, payments were effected to bank by a delay of two and a half
year because of the delay in payment done by General Directorate of Public Finance to
General Directorate of Highways.
In the defense of Greater Municipality of zmir, it was declared that, maps of the
development plan related to highway construction, which was planned by General
Directorate of Highways, were sent to Greater Municipality of zmir for approval
purpose (in order to mark the highway route on the development plan) by Second
Regional Directorate of Highways with the official letter dated 14.05.1992/ numbered
16700 and this information was accepted by the decision of municipal council dated
27.10.1992. It was also expressed that; “Plans and projects, which are realized by public
institutions in country and regional scale according to contemporary urban planning
approach, have to be accepted as a superior data for development plans and this is a
legal obligation”. It was claimed that, there was not any contradiction in these decisions,
which were considered as superior data for development plans, against planning
principles, urban planning essentials and public interest.
134