a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process

eing appropriate with the legal process in effect. In spite of all these <strong>evaluation</strong>
differences “justice” is very abstract.
Similar results occur when the situation is studied from the viewpoints of
different acts. The claims of plaintiffs in the acts against the expropriation decisions
about Aydın Çe me Highway, demand that a balance should be formed between public
interest and individual interest. In this sense it is emphasized that the balance of social
and individual interests will be just and the interests and rights of individuals cannot be
disregarded in a decision taken for the name of public interest. In the actions against
Committee of Protection the demands of the plaintiffs are about their ownership rights,
that the decision obstructing the development plans also obstruct the maximization of
individual rights and that this process is “unjust”. A more open definition of these
objections is the objection to not having the same urban profit which many urban areas
have. Another objection is to the decision which caused the property owners at that area
to pay the cost of development limitation decision taken at that area which carries
importance for all citizens. The common point in the testimonies of the plaintiffs is their
demand in balancing the social and individual interest. However, while Highway
plaintiffs express their demands in meeting their sheltering needs, the Committee of
Protection plaintiffs talk about having equal shares from urban profit, as others. The
expert committee although express that they consider these two processes by giving
priority to social interest/public interest, technically, in fact two different applications
take place. In Highway actions, the expert committees approve the construction of
highway and relevant plan decisions taken for public interest. In Committee of
Protection decisions, however, the expert committee make their technical <strong>evaluation</strong>s
for the behalf of property owners. Decisions taken by the courts at the end of this
process based on the reports of the expert committee and on legal frame. It is seen that
decisions are mostly taken according to the reports of the expert committees. However,
in the actions against the decisions of Committee of Protection it is seen that two
different decisions taken for the same report prepared for the same plot by the same
expert committee and that no unanimity is reached at the decisions.
Another important sample about whether a just process and decision is reached
is Özdilek act. A protest act was taken by a non-governmental organization against the
plan change decision basing on a plot. The firm Özdilek which selected an area, on
which Committee of Protection took decisions, finished its construction and opened. It
is impossible to talk about just decisions taken through egalitarian and justly process
192