Can the land share of an owner who does not agree to the choice of contractor, the allocation arrangements or the contractual terms of an urban transformation project be sold? Law No. 6306 permits this under certain conditions. However, agreement by the majority does not remove all safeguards protecting the property rights of other owners. The adoption of the decision, notification of the offer, valuation of the share and the administrative sale are each subject to legal review.
The Required Majority Is Calculated By Ownership Shares Rather Than The Number Of Owners
Article 6 of Law No. 6306 requires an absolute majority calculated in proportion to the co-owners’ shares for decisions concerning transformation projects within its scope. The criterion is more than half of the total shares in the relevant property, rather than the number of meeting participants or apartment owners. Approval by a large number of owners is therefore insufficient on its own if they do not hold the required majority of shares.
Law No. 7471 amended the previous two-thirds majority threshold. References to two-thirds in judgments concerning earlier disputes should not be read as the current majority requirement. Nor does this special regime automatically apply to every decision to redevelop an apartment building; the property’s status under Law No. 6306 and the nature of the project must first be established.
Invitation To The Meeting And Notification Of The Offer Are Separate Stages
The amendment published in the Official Gazette dated 4 February 2026, No. 33158, expressly requires all owners to be invited to a meeting for new projects on plots containing buildings classified as at risk. The meeting’s place and time are notified using the prescribed form, either by a notice displayed for fifteen days at the neighbourhood head’s office or, if the building has not yet been demolished, at its entrance or on its noticeboard, or through a notary. The meeting is held and the decision adopted with at least an absolute majority calculated by ownership shares; the decision is recorded in signed minutes.
An invitation to the meeting does not replace notification of the decision subsequently adopted. The non-consenting owner must separately be notified of the decision and the offer setting out the agreed terms, or of the place where these may be inspected. Electronic service is used for owners who have notified the land registry of their electronic service address; otherwise, notification through a notary or the statutory notice procedure at the neighbourhood head’s office applies. Depending on the method used, the final day of the public notice period or the end of the fifth day following delivery of the electronic notification is relevant to determining when service is deemed to have occurred.
The fifteen-day period allowed for considering the offer depends on the date of actual or deemed service. The period for displaying the notice at the neighbourhood head’s office must not be confused with the period for examining and accepting the offer. The notification must also explain that the land share may be sold if the offer is not accepted.
Refusal To Sign Does Not Automatically Transfer The Share
A non-consenting owner’s share cannot be transferred by a unilateral declaration of the other owners or the contractor. The conditions in the Law and its Implementing Regulation must be fulfilled, and the sale procedure must be conducted before the competent Directorate or Administration. Only co-owners who have reached agreement are eligible to purchase at the first auction. For buildings classified as at risk, separate provisions permit third parties who accept the agreement to participate in subsequent sales if the first sale does not take place. Subsequent procedures in designated risk areas and reserve development areas may differ depending on who carries out the project.
The fact that the sale follows this special procedure does not make it the same as a sale in proceedings for the dissolution of co-ownership. Indeed, Article 6(16) of the Law provides that bringing such proceedings does not automatically prevent decisions being adopted and steps being taken by an absolute majority under Law No. 6306.
The Market Value Of The Land Share Must Be Established Using Concrete Evidence
The sale cannot take place below the market value determined, or commissioned to be determined, by the Presidency of Urban Transformation (Kentsel Dönüşüm Başkanlığı). Valuation is not merely a matter of applying a figure to the ownership fraction recorded in the land register; the property’s location, zoning status, development conditions, comparable sales and other characteristics affecting its value must be assessed.
In its judgment dated 14 December 2023 (Case No. 2023/12152, Decision No. 2023/7053), the Fourth Chamber of the Council of State found it unlawful to dismiss a challenge alleging an undervaluation without an on-site inspection and expert examination. The same judgment stated that allegations concerning the unlawfulness of the allocation arrangements in the new project also had to be considered.
The Fourth Chamber of the Council of State’s judgment dated 26 May 2025 (Case No. 2025/1981, Decision No. 2025/3361) likewise demonstrates that judicial review of a valuation must rest on concrete documents. The Chamber considered it necessary to obtain the relevant documents to verify the land registry information concerning the comparable sales used in the expert report and, where necessary, to obtain a supplementary report. Accordingly, neither an allegation that “the price is too low” nor a defence that “a valuation report exists” should be regarded as sufficient on its own.
Bringing Proceedings Does Not Automatically Suspend The Sale
Legal protection against a sale and related administrative acts carried out under Law No. 6306 is sought before the administrative courts. Article 6(9) of the Law prescribes a thirty-day period from service for bringing proceedings against these administrative acts. Contractual and other private-law disputes between owners must be assessed separately according to the nature of the claim; a single form of action and a single time limit should not be assumed to apply to every dispute.
Bringing an administrative action does not automatically suspend the sale. A stay of execution must be requested separately under Article 27 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Law. This requires concrete grounds demonstrating both the manifest unlawfulness of the act and the harm that would be difficult or impossible to remedy if it were implemented. Owners should not assume that the sale has been suspended merely because an objection has been lodged with the administration or proceedings have been brought.
Annulment Of The Sale Does Not Always Result In The Return Of The Share
Article 6(1) of Law No. 6306 draws an important distinction concerning the implementation of an annulment judgment. Where a sale is annulled solely because the price was calculated too low, the judgment is to be implemented by the owner who purchased the share paying the price difference to the former owner. A successful challenge concerning an undervaluation therefore does not always result in title reverting to the former owner.
Even where annulment is based on grounds other than an undervaluation, re-registration is not guaranteed. It matters whether the share has been transferred to a third party and whether any steps have been taken that make registration in the former owner’s name legally or practically impossible. This provision also illustrates the importance of seeking effective interim relief before the sale.
Conclusion
In urban transformation projects, a majority decision may provide a basis for the sale of a dissenting owner’s share through the statutory procedure. However, defective service, an incorrect calculation of the majority or an inadequate valuation cannot be made valid merely by relying on that decision. To protect the owner’s rights, the grounds of challenge must be correctly identified, and the meeting and service documents, the offer, the valuation report and the sale procedures must be examined together.
For information about our services concerning the assessment of urban transformation and real estate disputes, legal advice and the conduct of litigation, please contact us.