a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process

In expertise reports; it is mentioned that “court council has demanded an
<strong>evaluation</strong> regarding development plans, this is why they has taken such an <strong>evaluation</strong>
into consideration” and following points are stated regarding planning process:
1. The are that is the subject of litigation was defined as “non-residential area” in zmir
Metropolitan Area Master Plan scaled 1/25000, approved in 1973 by Ministry of
Public Works and Settlement,
2. This area was decided as highway and area to be planted in 1988 and approved on
Master Plan Revision by Greater Municipality of zmir in 1989,
3. In the Master Plan scaled 1/5000 approved in 2002, it includes plots no:96 and 98
and part of the unregistered land
4. There is not any accordance with the zmir Metropolitan Area Master Plan, which
was approved in 1989 but still in force today, and Master Plan scaled 1/5000 and
this condition has a contradiction to principle and basis of planning process,
5. Plan changes were not realized according to the article no:24/1 of the regulation
arranging the principles that should be applied in development plan revisions,
6. A plan, an approach that focus on only one property (properties of the municipality
that authorized for plan preparation and approval) will cause a discussion in
“equality” and “justice” principles,
7. Great part of the land has a slope of over 45% and exist on 1 st Degree Earthquake
Zone and development proposal with FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 2.5 and 1.4 isn’t in
accordance. In this framework, according to above <strong>evaluation</strong>s, expert committee
has decided that “it is not in accordance with principles and basis of planning, public
interests and Development Act.”(E. No. 2002/1043)
As a result, according to expertise report, administrative court decided to
“conclude the transection without taking any pecuniary warranty” with E.No:2003/581
on 9.7.2003. The same administrative court made the same decision on the same area on
24.7.2003 with E.N. 2003/684. In the action brought with E.No. 2002/792 by the same
plaintiffs in 12 th Civil Court of First Instance against the same institutions; annulment of
registrations of the same plots in the name of Greater Municipality of zmir and
conveyance of these registration to Municipality of Balçova and decision of cautionary
judgement were demanded. Greater Municipality of zmir objected cautionary
judgement decision taken in this action and started in their objection petition; “There
has to be a lapse of time in a legal <strong>evaluation</strong> after 30 years.” Besides, it is also claimed
that, “party of the action should be the Municipality of Balçova because they had sold
174