Action For Correction Of Land Shares

A land share, under Condominium Law No. 634 (the “Condominium Law”), refers to the co-ownership share in the land of the main property allocated to each independent unit. Pursuant to Article 3 of the Condominium Law, land shares must be determined in proportion to the values of the independent units as of the date on which the condominium easement is established or, where condominium ownership is established directly, as of the date on which condominium ownership is established.

Where land shares have not been determined in accordance with this principle, condominium owners or holders of condominium easements may request that the land shares be reallocated. Land shares may be corrected by agreement among the owners or, if no agreement can be reached, through court proceedings under Article 3 of the Condominium Law.

The correct determination of land shares is important for establishing an independent unit owner’s ownership ratio in the land and determining the owner’s rights in an urban transformation process. This article examines the principles governing the determination of land shares, the correction of land shares, the conditions for bringing an action, evidence and expert examination, the principle of good faith, urban transformation, and the effect of demolition of the building on such proceedings, in light of recent Court of Cassation case law.

1. What Is a Land Share and How Is It Determined?

Pursuant to Article 2(d) of the Condominium Law, a land share is the “co-ownership share in the land allocated to independent units in accordance with the principles set out in this Law.” A land share is attached to the independent unit and cannot be transferred separately from that unit.

Under Article 3 of the Condominium Law, condominium ownership and condominium easement are established by expressly specifying the land shares allocated in proportion to the values of the independent units, calculated according to their location and size. Accordingly, the floor area of an independent unit is not, by itself, the basis for determining its land share.

The Court of Cassation has consistently held that factors affecting the value of an independent unit, such as its type, floor, area, heating system, natural lighting, architectural use, location, frontage and view, must be assessed together when determining its land share (see, e.g., the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 27 March 2017, E. 2017/4756, K. 2017/2449; and the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 16 November 2021, E. 2020/9600, K. 2021/13198).

Article 3 of the Condominium Law also determines the relevant valuation date. If a condominium easement was previously established over the property, the date on which the condominium easement was established must be taken into account. If condominium ownership was established directly without a prior condominium easement, the relevant date is the date on which condominium ownership was established.

Any increase or decrease in the value of the independent units after that date does not require a change in their land shares. Accordingly, subsequent zoning changes, alterations, changes in use, increases in the value of the surrounding area or changes in view are, as a rule, not taken into account for the purposes of correcting land shares.

2. How Are Land Shares Corrected?

If the existing land shares are found not to be proportionate to the values of the independent units, the land shares may be reallocated by agreement among the owners.

As a change to the land share of one independent unit also affects the land shares of the other independent units in the main property, a consensual correction must be carried out with the participation of all owners. The process may be completed by preparing the required documents and registering the new land shares with the land registry.

If no agreement can be reached among the owners, court proceedings may be initiated pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Condominium Law. As the Law requires land shares to be allocated in proportion to the values of the independent units, where the allocation does not comply with this requirement, each condominium owner and holder of a condominium easement is entitled to apply to the court for the reallocation of the land shares.

3. Conditions for an Action for Correction of Land Shares

For a court to order the correction of land shares, the land shares must have been determined disproportionately to the values of the independent units as of the date on which the condominium easement or condominium ownership was established.

The 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation also held, in its decision dated 20 September 2017, E. 2017/4439, K. 2017/6559, that the first condition for the reallocation of land shares is the existence of a disproportion between the existing land shares and the values of the independent units.

In this context, the claimant must establish, through concrete facts and evidence, why the land share was not proportionate to the value of the relevant independent unit as of the date of establishment. Where differences exist among independent units in terms of floor, area, frontage, location, intended use or other factors affecting value, but those differences were not reflected in the land shares, this may, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, constitute grounds for correction.

By contrast, the fact that the current market value of an independent unit has increased more than that of other units, or that the building is to undergo urban transformation, is not in itself sufficient to justify the correction of land shares. The assessment must be made on the basis of the circumstances existing as of the date of establishment.

The Condominium Law does not prescribe a limitation period or forfeiture period for actions seeking the correction of land shares. In its decision dated 10 September 2015, E. 2015/25, K. 2015/81, the Constitutional Court also held that the absence of a statutory time limit on the right to bring such an action was not unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, the absence of a time limit on the right to bring an action does not preclude the application of the principle of good faith under Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code.

4. Evidence and Expert Examination

In an action for correction of land shares, evidence must be assessed by reference to the circumstances existing as of the date on which the condominium easement or condominium ownership was established.

Accordingly, the land registry establishment file, documents relating to the determination of land shares, official title deeds, the architectural project approved by the municipality, the building permit, the occupancy permit and other documents capable of demonstrating the characteristics of the independent units as of the date of establishment are important for the examination of the dispute. Old photographs, valuation reports and similar documents may also be considered depending on the circumstances of the particular case.

The expert examination must likewise be conducted by reference to the factors affecting the values of the independent units as of the date of establishment. It is not sufficient to rely on current market values or to make a calculation based solely on the floor areas of the independent units.

In its decision dated 13 February 2024, E. 2023/11838, K. 2024/1592, the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that an expert report which failed to assess individually the factors affecting the values of the independent units as of the date of establishment and failed to identify concretely the error in the land shares could not form the basis of a judgment.

Similarly, in its decision dated 17 February 2025, E. 2024/6892, K. 2025/1933, the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that all factors having a positive or negative impact on the values of the independent units as of the date on which the condominium easement was established must be examined, and that expert reports based on abstract assessments are insufficient.

Accordingly, the expert report should identify the characteristics of each independent unit as of the date of establishment, compare the factors affecting their respective values and provide a reasoned explanation of the relationship between those factors and the existing land shares.

5. Effect of the Principle of Good Faith on Actions for Correction of Land Shares

The principle of good faith under Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code is also taken into account in exercising the right to seek correction of land shares.

The Court of Cassation has held that where owners who directly participated in determining the land shares when the condominium easement or condominium ownership was established subsequently claim that those shares were incorrectly determined, the claimant’s good faith and legally protectable interest must also be assessed.

In its decision dated 16 November 2021, E. 2020/9600, K. 2021/13198, the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that it should be investigated whether the claimants had signed the documents relating to the establishment of the land shares and that their good faith should be assessed in light of the findings of that investigation.

The mere fact that no objection was raised against the existing land shares for a long period does not, by itself, extinguish the right to bring an action. However, in its recent decisions, the Court of Cassation has considered together the absence of any objection for a prolonged period, the filing of the action at the urban transformation stage, and the failure to establish through concrete evidence that the land shares were disproportionate as of the date of establishment.

In its decision dated 25 March 2025, E. 2024/5809, K. 2025/3987, the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld, also taking Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code into account, the dismissal of an action in a dispute where the claimant had failed to establish concrete and justified grounds that had not been taken into consideration when the land shares were originally determined. The dissenting opinion in the same decision stated, however, that the Law does not subject the right to bring an action to any time limit and that, in particular, the exercise of a statutory right by subsequent owners who did not participate in the original determination of the land shares cannot, by itself, be regarded as bad faith.

Accordingly, in assessing the principle of good faith, the claimant’s role in the original determination of the land shares, when and under what circumstances the property was acquired, the period during which the claimant did not object to the existing land share, and the developments giving rise to the action should be considered together.

6. Importance of Land Shares in Urban Transformation

Under Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas under Disaster Risk, land shares are directly relevant to decisions to be taken in the urban transformation process.

Following the amendments introduced to Law No. 6306 by Law No. 7471, decisions concerning the reconstruction of risky buildings and other related transactions are taken by a simple majority in proportion to the shares held by the owners. Accordingly, a land share directly affects an owner’s voting weight in the urban transformation process.

The possibility of selling, subject to the conditions prescribed by law, the land shares of owners who do not participate in the decision further increases the significance of land shares in the transformation process.

Nevertheless, an existing land share does not, by itself, determine which independent unit will be allocated to an owner in the new building. The allocation of independent units to owners in the new project is determined separately on the basis of the agreements between the parties, the project to be implemented, the agreement to be entered into with the contractor and the values of the independent units in the new project. The land share, by contrast, represents the owner’s ownership ratio in the land during this process.

7. Effect of Demolition of the Building on an Action for Correction of Land Shares

The physical demolition of the building does not, by itself, render an action for correction of land shares moot. The determining factors in this respect are whether, following demolition, the land shares attached to the condominium ownership or condominium easement have been legally extinguished and whether the claimant continues to have a legal interest in their correction. If the condominium easement or condominium ownership relationship has not been legally extinguished, the proceedings may continue. By contrast, if that status has been cancelled and the property has been converted into co-ownership, there is no longer a land share capable of correction under Article 3 of the Condominium Law.

7.1. Demolition of the Building While Proceedings Are Pending

The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation examined the demolition of the main structure while an action for correction of land shares was pending in its decision dated 10 September 2025, E. 2023/648, K. 2025/512.

In the case giving rise to the decision, the action was filed while the building was still standing, and the building was demolished while the proceedings were pending. The regional court of appeal held that the action had become moot on the ground that condominium ownership automatically terminates under Article 47(1) of the Condominium Law if the entire main structure is destroyed. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers did not adopt this approach.

According to the General Assembly of Civil Chambers, for an action to become moot as a result of an event occurring during the proceedings, the parties must no longer have any legal interest whatsoever in a judgment on the merits. In the case at hand, the main property had been demolished, but the parties had not re-determined the land shares by agreement and established a new condominium easement or condominium ownership. Even if the building is demolished and the property becomes vacant land, condominium owners continue to hold ownership rights in the land in accordance with co-ownership principles and in proportion to their existing land shares. The claimant therefore continued to have a legal interest in determining whether those shares had been correctly established.

The decision was rendered by a majority. The dissenting opinion stated that the condominium easement automatically terminated upon demolition of the main structure, that the relevant procedures should be carried out under Law No. 6306, and that adopting the contrary view would prolong the transformation process.

7.2. Cancellation of the Condominium Easement and Conversion of the Property into Co-Ownership

The 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation considered a different legal situation in its decision dated 20 May 2025, E. 2025/2631, K. 2025/7777.

In the case giving rise to that decision, the building had previously been demolished and the action had been filed while the condominium easement remained in force. However, during the proceedings, the condominium easement was cancelled by a court decision, the property was converted into co-ownership, and that decision became final.

Relying on the decision of the former 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 3 March 2008, E. 2007/9977, K. 2008/2372, the first instance court held that such actions may be brought only for so long as the main structure retains its condominium easement or condominium ownership status and that, where the condominium easement has terminated and the property has been converted into co-ownership, there are no longer any land shares capable of correction. The first instance court therefore dismissed the action. The regional court of appeal upheld that decision, and the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation affirmed it.

When these decisions are considered together, the physical demolition of a building does not, by itself, determine the outcome of the action. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers held that, even after demolition, the claimant may retain a legal interest in determining the accuracy of the existing land shares because those shares continue to determine the ownership ratios in the land. By contrast, in the specific circumstances considered in the above-mentioned decision of the 5th Civil Chamber, the condominium easement had been cancelled by a final court decision and the property had been converted into co-ownership. Accordingly, it was held that there was no longer any land share capable of correction under Article 3 of the Condominium Law, and the fact that the cancellation occurred after the action had been filed did not lead to a different conclusion.

Accordingly, particularly where land shares are believed to be incorrect in the context of an urban transformation process, the legal position should be assessed before the condominium ownership or condominium easement is cancelled. Indeed, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Law No. 6306, once a building has been demolished and the property has become vacant land, any previously established condominium easement or condominium ownership is cancelled ex officio by the relevant land registry directorate, upon the request of the Urban Transformation Presidency and without requiring the consent of the interested parties, and the property is registered in the names of the owners in proportion to their respective shares.

8. Competent Court, Territorial Jurisdiction, Parties and Mediation

Pursuant to Additional Article 1 of the Condominium Law, the Civil Court of Peace has subject-matter jurisdiction over disputes arising from the application of the Condominium Law.

As an action for correction of land shares concerns a right in rem over immovable property, Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the courts of the place where the property is located have exclusive territorial jurisdiction.

Pursuant to Article 18/B of Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, disputes arising from the Condominium Law are subject to mandatory mediation as a condition precedent to litigation. Accordingly, an application for mediation must be made before filing an action for correction of land shares.

An action may be brought by a condominium owner or a holder of a condominium easement. As a change to the land share of one independent unit also affects the land shares of the other independent units, the action must be directed against the owners of all other independent units. All owners must therefore be joined as parties to the proceedings.

As the land registry directorate is not a party to the dispute concerning the determination of the land shares, it is, as a rule, not named as a defendant.

In practice, actions for correction of land shares are considered to be subject to a fixed court fee, and the court decision must become final before it can be implemented in the land registry.

The filing of an action for correction of land shares does not automatically stay the determination of a risky building or the demolition process under Law No. 6306. Depending on the circumstances of the particular case, interim legal remedies such as an interim injunction or determination of evidence may be considered separately. In particular, where there is a possibility that the building may be demolished, it is important to obtain, before or during the proceedings, documents demonstrating the existing characteristics of the independent units and their condition as of the date of establishment.

9. Conclusion

Pursuant to Article 3 of the Condominium Law, land shares must be determined in proportion to the values of the independent units as of the date on which the condominium easement or, where established directly, condominium ownership was established. If that allocation was incorrectly made as of the date of establishment, the land shares may be re-determined by agreement among the owners or, where the applicable conditions are met, through an action for correction of land shares.

The relevant value for the purposes of such an action is not the current market value of the independent unit, but its value as of the date on which the condominium easement or condominium ownership was established. The claimant must establish the disproportion existing as of that date through concrete evidence, and the expert examination must likewise be conducted by reference to the factors affecting value as of the date of establishment.

Recent Court of Cassation decisions indicate that, in addition to the substantive conditions applicable to the correction of land shares, the principle of good faith under Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code has also gained importance. In particular, claims brought by owners who participated in the original determination of the land shares and actions filed during an urban transformation process are assessed separately in light of the circumstances of the particular case.

As regards the effect of demolition of the building on the proceedings, the date on which the action was filed and the legal status recorded in the land registry are determinative. Under the decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, E. 2023/648, K. 2025/512, demolition of the building while proceedings are pending does not in every case eliminate the claimant’s legal interest. By contrast, where the condominium ownership or condominium easement has been cancelled and the property has been converted into co-ownership, a different legal assessment applies because there is no longer a land share capable of correction.

Accordingly, in disputes concerning the correction of land shares, the land registry records should be examined together with the documents establishing the condominium easement or condominium ownership, the architectural project, the characteristics of the independent units as of the date of establishment, and the property’s current legal status.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.