a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process

different groups affected by the decision? These processes are guidelines in trying to
understand and rearrange the concepts of equality, interest, freedom and right as
components of justice. Under these <strong>evaluation</strong>s and questions it will be possible to
evaluate whether a decision on urban land is just and what kind of justice definition is
brought up. In the <strong>evaluation</strong> done by each side in the cases during adjudication the
existence of justice argument could only be possible by these questions.
Important results that will guide the practical processes in the surveys done on
the sample area about adjudication are:
It is seen that there is no one definition of justice from the viewpoint of sides
and parties which are plaintiffs, defendants, expert committee and during adjudication
period. The approaches and definitions of property owners are that they accept justice as
having the maximum building right on their own properties. So, the dominant viewpoint
is that they should have the same opportunity to have the same urban profits like other
property owners in the city. It is acceptable that these demands base on a rightful
thought since this area has an important urban profit and usage rights are limited highly.
However, cases about protecting the rights of urban population are very small in
number, which were opened by the citizens who are not property owners and who
contribute to the formation of urban profit on that area. In this sense, it is seen that while
individual property owner rights are carried to a legal platform no arguments are done
about citizen rights. This process represents that the rights of urban population are not
defined clearly and that there are many insufficiencies about the organizations about
limitations on urban plots, property market. In the claims of decision making
institutions and practicing units which are defendant parties, on the other hand, it is
stated that the public institution about “justice”, considers the public interest in all its
decisions. Therefore it can be claimed that the decisions are “just” in that sense. From
this viewpoint it can be concluded that the institution is neutral/impartial and
independent, has equal distance to all social groups and acts homogenously to all social
groups, which is impossible. It is indefinite what kind of a “public interest” and “just”
relation process take place in the plan changes about increasing the density on plot
bases, on the survey area. In the <strong>evaluation</strong> of expert committee, it is seen that although
an <strong>evaluation</strong> basing on planning discipline and planning principles take place, no clear
explanation was given about whatever will provide these principles to be “just”. The
expert committee which especially forms of three people in administrative court
sometimes did not have the same opinion. In this sense these people who have the same
194