a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process

also the legal and legitimacy processes need to regard this approach and make
<strong>evaluation</strong>s of decisions and activities about space.
When the consideration of justice concept is evaluated from the viewpoints of
plaintiffs, defendants, expert committee and courts in these studied acts, it is seen that
there is no common definition and/or consideration both within the parties and among
the parties. These parties which put demands, <strong>evaluation</strong>s and interventions on urban
space, explain the freedoms, rights, interests and equalities which are components of
justice concept with the below mentioned differences.
In different acts, it is found that there existed no homogenous structure among
the plaintiffs of the acts that were charged with a demand of reaching to just results
through just processes. Part of the settlers who built illegal buildings and who objected
to the demolishment decision demands the abolishment of the restricted development
rights. These demands mostly come from people who have mid and high incomes and
who want to build a house on their own land. Among these acts there is only one act on
gecekondu areas and he mentions that he built “an illegal floor” in order to meet his
“sheltering need”. Even though the demands of two groups of plaintiffs about the
abolishment of housing rights and limitations seem to have similar contents it is clear
that they do not have similar socio-economic conditions. While these two parties
indicate to the usage of individualistic ownership rights in their claims defendant
municipalities as local administrative units claim that they act “equally” to these two
groups and that these types of applications are predicted by laws, also, “for public
interest”. Opinions of expert committee control the appropriation of building sites to the
existing plans and laws as a technical and procedural process and “their appropriation to
justice” bases on these <strong>evaluation</strong>s. At this point both in the <strong>evaluation</strong>s of defendants
and of the expert committees, justice is considered as “being appropriate with the
regulations” and being appropriate with the existing arrangements. However, in such a
consideration, because “justice” concept involved by the existing regulations is taken
out of <strong>evaluation</strong> process it is only possible to talk about its appropriateness to the
regulations rather than its being just. During the adjudication process determined by the
court council, different courts reach different results and mostly give decisions in
parallel with the <strong>evaluation</strong>s of the expert committees. In other words, the levels of legal
appropriateness of the technical / procedural processes are controlled by the courts.
However, the meaning of results being just from the viewpoint of the courts, means
191