ENTRANCE
In Türkiye, the relationship between property law and forest regime has been one of the most debated areas, both legally and socially, throughout history. In particular, increasing population and urbanization pressures have made it necessary to determine the legal status of areas that have effectively lost their "forest" status. As a result of this need, the concept known in the literature as "2/B" refers to areas removed from forest boundaries in accordance with Article 2(B) of the Forest Law No. 6831.
The identification of 2/B areas is not merely a technical measurement process; it is also a complex administrative process based on specific criteria from a scientific and technical perspective, such as the loss of forest characteristics or conversion to agricultural or residential areas. In this process, it is essential to maintain a delicate balance between property rights, the development of forest villagers, and the integration of treasury lands into the economy. The ownership rights, sales procedures, and judicial remedies regulated by Law No. 6292 are fundamental elements determining the legal fate of these properties.
This article will first address the concept of forests and the scientific criteria required for a piece of land to be classified as 2/B (land designated for development). Then, the conditions for acquiring rights over these lands, the importance of the concept of improvements, the sales and transfer processes, and the legal remedies available against the sale price in light of the Constitutional Court's recent annulment decisions will be examined in detail.
Keywords: Forest Boundaries, Cadastral Record, 2/B Lands, Law No. 6292, Right of Ownership, Improvements, Market Value, Treasury Properties, Property Right, Sale Price, Annulment Lawsuit.
1. IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF 2/B LANDS
The definition of a forest is given in the Forest Law No. 6831 and it appears as the places of naturally growing or cultivated tree and shrub communities . In the doctrine, the forest is defined as " a life community that creates a perfect combination of trees, shrubs, dead cover, microorganisms, game animals and other vegetation types that have positive effects both in terms of the economy, culture and health of society and in terms of natural events" [ 1] .
Article 2 of the Forest Law No. 6831 [2] lists the places that will be excluded from the forest boundaries. According to subparagraph B of this article, the places that will be excluded from the forest boundaries are listed, and these areas will be referred to as "2B lands" throughout our text. The first condition that the areas to be excluded from the forest boundaries with the 2B application must meet is that they must have completely lost their forest characteristics in terms of science and technology before 31/12/1981 [3] . Another condition is that this area must have been converted into an agricultural or settlement area [4] or that there is benefit in using this area as an agricultural-livestock area [5] .
The criterion of whether a land has completely lost its forest character in terms of science and technology is explained within the scope of article 24 [6] of the 2/B Implementation Regulation .
Accordingly, the land is deemed to have lost its forest status in terms of science and technology under two conditions. These are; the condition that there are no trees or shrubs on the land and the condition that there is no economic or public benefit in maintaining its forest status [7] .
2. OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT
According to Article 6/1 of the Law No. 6292 on Supporting the Development of Forest Villagers and Evaluating the Lands Removed from Forest Boundaries on Behalf of the Treasury and Selling Agricultural Lands Belonging to the Treasury (“ Law No. 6292 ”) [8] , there are three conditions that must be met in order to be considered entitled.
The first condition is that the applicant must be listed in current lists, cadastral records, or finalized court decisions as the user or owner of improvements on the land before December 31, 2011. In addition, they must have submitted a purchase application to the administration within the legal timeframe. The final condition is that the applicant must accept the sale price determined by the administration without any objection or litigation. In summary, those who appear as users/owners in records prior to December 31, 2011, and who apply within the timeframe and declare acceptance without objection to the sale price, legally acquire the status of rights holder.
As can be seen, the law stipulates that ownership rights require being the user of the land and/or the owner of the improvements on it. At this point, the difference between the owner of the improvements and the land user has critical consequences in terms of the distribution of the sale price and ownership rights.
Improvements are, as a rule, an integral part of the immovable property and are subject to the landowner [9] . However, during the cadastre, an annotation can be made in the declarations section of the land registry by specifying the owner, type, date of creation and reason for acquisition, in accordance with Article 19/2 of the Cadastre Law No. 3402 [10] . Indeed, in its decision dated 24.03.2021, numbered 2019/5419 and 2021/1807, the 8th Chamber of the Council of State concluded that the condition of ownership was not met because third parties other than the plaintiffs appeared as owners of improvements in the declarations section of the title deed of the relevant immovable property [11] .
Consequently, in the 2/B application, when the land user and the owner of the improvements are different individuals, ownership rights are determined according to the annotations in the declarations section of the land registry prior to 31/12/2011, cadastral records, and finalized decisions. Both parties' claims must be proven separately.
3. SALES AND TRANSFER PROCESS
The sale process of treasury lands and 2B lands is primarily shaped within the framework of a "purchase procedure" rather than a unilateral action by the administration. According to the legislation, it is essential for the administration to first attempt negotiation when disposing of such properties.
During the sales process, the administration establishes two main commissions within its own structure: the Appraisal Commission and the Conciliation Commission. While the appraisal commission determines the price of the property, the conciliation commission conducts the negotiation process with the owner or right holder. In sales to owners of structures on treasury lands, the Building Registration Certificate plays a critical role. In this process, it is seen that "the administration determines the price of the property and prepares an Estimated Price Determination Report, then, within the framework of sales transactions, an on-site inspection and evaluation is carried out and a Property Inspection Report is prepared . " [12]
Sales transactions will be finalized by the administration within a maximum of six months from the end of the application period. The sale price of the properties has been determined as 70% of the market value.
Cash Payment: A 20% discount is applied if the full sale price is paid in cash, and a 10% discount is applied if at least half of the price is paid in cash.
Installment Payment: The sale price can be paid in installments. In installment sales, the transfer of title is completed by establishing a mortgage on the property or obtaining a letter of guarantee.
For properties with a 2B designation, heirs may acquire rights through legal succession. Right holders may transfer their rights to third parties with a consent form prepared before a notary after the effective date of the law. In this case, contractual successors may benefit from the right of direct sale.
4. OBJECTION TO THE SALE PRICE AND LEGAL REMEDY
Although the right to file a lawsuit against the sale price of 2B lands was restricted by a legal obstacle until recently, the legal status has changed with the annulment decisions of the Constitutional Court. The sentence "No objection can be made to the notified sale price and no lawsuit can be filed" in the 8th paragraph of the 6th article of Law No. 6292 and the lawsuit prohibition provisions in the 13th paragraph were annulled by the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 18/05/2023 and numbered E:2023/27, K:2023/100. [13]
The Constitutional Court ruled that the prohibition in question violated Articles 35 (Right to Property) and 40 (Right to Effective Remedy) of the Constitution. It emphasized that the right to property could be violated if the administration incorrectly determined the market value, and that closing off the judicial remedy against such errors was incompatible with the principle of the rule of law.
Since actions such as determining the sale price and rejecting a direct sale request are administrative acts based on public authority, carried out ex officio and unilaterally, the Administrative Courts have jurisdiction in these disputes.
In the event of a dispute over price between the administration and the rights holder during the sales process, the legal remedy to be pursued varies depending on the nature of the dispute (judicial or administrative).
4.1. Legal Remedies (Valuation Cases)
Disputes regarding compensation generally fall within the jurisdiction of the judicial system. If the administration and the rights holder cannot agree on the compensation amount, the administration is obliged to file a "Compensation Determination and Registration Lawsuit".
“Disputes regarding price will be resolved in judicial authorities.” [14] . In this context, the purchasing administration or the right holder applies to the Civil Court of First Instance in the place where the immovable property is located and requests that the price be determined by the judge.
It is not possible for the administration to file a lawsuit directly; it must first prove that it has tried the purchase/settlement procedure. "Trying the purchase procedure is a 'condition for filing a lawsuit' for the determination of the price and registration lawsuit to be filed in the Civil Court of First Instance." [15]
4.2. Administrative Judicial Review (Annulment Cases)
An administrative court case can be filed to annul elements of the sales transaction other than the price (determination of entitlement, rejection of the sale, irregularities in the administrative process).
Against the determination of entitlement made by the Governorship or the relevant directorates, a lawsuit can be filed in the Administrative Court within the legal period from the date of notification. “The sales transactions of those who document that they have filed a lawsuit in the administrative court within the legal period from the determination of the Governorship or, if an objection has been filed, from the notification of the result of the objection, are suspended until the final decision is given as a result of the lawsuit.” [16] .
5. CIRCUMSTANCES AND EXCEPTIONS THAT PREVENT SALE
Not every 2B land plot can be directly sold. According to Article 6/12 of the Law, the following areas are excluded from sale:
Afforestation areas allocated to the General Directorate of Forestry,
Real estate allocated for or used for public service,
Areas located within a 300-meter band from the maximum water level in drinking and utility water catchment areas,
Properties that need to be evaluated according to special laws (for example, reserve building areas under Law No. 6306).
In such cases, the property is not sold directly to the rights holder; however, upon request, the rights holder may be sold another 2B land plot, preferably within the same provincial boundaries, with an equivalent market value to the property.
Supreme Court rulings state that the user annotation in the declarations section of the land registry is critically important for the completion of the 2B sales process, and that lawsuits arising from the erroneous establishment or absence of this annotation directly affect the sales process. However, it is noted that the possibility of hearing requests for correction of the annotation after the sale has taken place is limited.
In conclusion, the sale process for 2B and Treasury lands begins with an administrative preparation and negotiation phase. While objections to the sale price by rights holders are generally resolved through price determination lawsuits heard in the Civil Courts of First Instance, annulment lawsuits must be filed in the Administrative Courts against administrative actions such as the rejection of the sale or the determination of rights.
CONCLUSION
The legal regime of 2/B lands, while upholding the ideal of protecting forest resources, also aims to resolve the discrepancy between the de facto and legal situations. As examined throughout the article, the inclusion of a land within the scope of 2/B depends on that land having scientifically and irreversibly lost its forest status before December 31, 1981. This is the first and most critical hurdle to overcome for the establishment of property rights.
The regulations introduced by Law No. 6292 have subjected the broad powers of the administration to a specific procedure; they have clarified the distinction between user and owner of improvements, thus providing a legal framework for the concept of ownership rights. In particular, the recent annulment by the Constitutional Court of provisions prohibiting lawsuits against sale prices is a turning point in terms of the rule of law and property rights. These annulment decisions, by opening up judicial avenues against unilaterally determined market values by the administration, have safeguarded the property rights of those entitled to compensation.
Consequently, the process of selling and transferring 2/B lands presents a multifaceted structure that falls within the jurisdiction of both administrative courts (annulment cases) and judicial courts (valuation). To prevent rights holders from suffering hardship during this process, it is crucial that they ensure the accuracy of the annotations in the land registry, adhere to application deadlines, and act in accordance with current court decisions. Solving the 2/B problem is possible not only through bringing the lands back into the economy, but also through establishing property security and social peace.
[1] Serhat Ayanoğlu, Legal Aspects of Forest Property and the Foundations of Forest Ownership, İÜOFD , 1995, pp. 38-39.
[2] Relevant article: “ Among the places considered as forests: A) Places where it is determined that there is no benefit in keeping them as forests, but rather that they are beneficial to be converted into agricultural areas, primarily for the purpose of partially or completely settling the people of the villages within the forest, and places covered with heath and maquis that are currently under the forest regime and where it is determined that it is beneficial to convert them into agricultural areas, B) Places that have completely lost their forest characteristics in terms of science and technology before 31/12/1981; various agricultural areas such as fields, vineyards, gardens, orchards, olive groves, hazelnut groves, pistachio groves (Antep pistachios, pine pistachios) or lands that are determined to be beneficial for use in animal husbandry such as pastures, winter pastures, summer pastures, and settlement areas where city, town and village structures are collectively located, are excluded from the forest boundaries.”
[3] The method of determining whether the forest status was lost before this date is regulated by Article 7 of the Forest Law No. 6831, and it is stated in this article that the situation before 31.12.1981 will be determined as a result of cadastral work.
[4] Mehmet Ünal and Veysel Başpınar, Forest Law, Yetkin Publishing, Ankara, 2010, p. 108.
[5] Serhat Ayanoğlu, The Problem of Excluding Forest Boundaries and Evaluating Areas Excluded from Forests, In Forest Cadastre and 2/B Problem, 73-89. TMMOB, 2004, p. 77.
[6] Relevant article: “Places that did not have trees and shrub communities before 31/12/1981 and are not useful for establishing forests in terms of forestry activities and economy are considered to have completely lost their forest characteristics in terms of science and technology.”
[7] Nuray Sümer, The Legal Regime of Utilizing Forest Areas from the Perspective of Administrative Law, Marmara University Social Sciences Institute, Istanbul, 2022, p. 51.
[8] The relevant article is as follows: “According to the declarations section of the land registry records created according to the update lists or cadastral records or finalized court decisions prepared before the date of entry into force of this Law regarding the immovables located in 2/B areas; those who are shown as the user of these immovables and/or the owner of the improvements on them before 31/12/2011, and who apply to the administration within the time limit to purchase these immovables and accept the sale price determined by the administration without objection or litigation, are deemed to be entitled to rights according to this Law.”
[9] Court of Cassation, 18th Civil Chamber, E. 2014/11815, K. 2014/12531, T. 11.09.2014: “The general rule is that the improvements on the immovable property are an integral part of the immovable property, and those who own the land also own the integral parts of the immovable property. In cases where the land is registered in the name of another person or there is joint ownership, the interested party must prove that the improvements belong to him.”
[10] The relevant article is as follows: “If there is an improvement on the immovable property belonging to someone other than the owner or to one of the co-owners, its owner, type, date of creation and reason for acquisition are indicated in the declarations section of the record and register.”
[11] Council of State, 8th Chamber, E. 2019/5419, K. 2021/1807, T. 24.03.2021: “It is established that the parcels of …, …, …, …, … in the island of … … in the Ümraniye district of Istanbul Province, for which direct sale is requested, fall within the scope of Article 2/B, however, there is no document or finding in the case file that the plaintiffs were the users of these properties and/or the owners of the improvements on them before 31/12/2011, on the contrary, the declarations section of the existing land registry records in the file states that the actual users of the parcels and the owners of the buildings on them are different persons from the plaintiffs, and the request of the plaintiffs, who cannot prove that they are the actual users of the properties and/or the owners of the improvements on them, to have the parcels in question sold directly to them based on Article 6 of Law No. 6292 is implicitly rejected.” "There is no irregularity, and the decision to annul the transaction is also found to be unlawful; therefore, the appeal is accepted, the Administrative Court's decision is overturned, and the case is dismissed."
[12] Muhammet Ali Yıldızbakan , Sale of Treasury Lands within the Scope of Building Registration Certificate, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University, Master's Thesis, Ankara 2025.
[13] Constitutional Court decision dated 18/05/2023 and numbered E:2023/27, K:2023/100
[14] Merve Selen Tunoğlu, Judicial Review of Expropriation Procedures in Terms of the Subject Matter of the Administrative Procedure, Istanbul Commerce University, Master's Thesis, Istanbul, 2025.
[15] Merve Selen Tunoğlu, Judicial Review of Expropriation Procedures in Terms of the Subject Matter of the Administrative Procedure, Istanbul Commerce University, Master's Thesis, Istanbul, 2025.
[16] İsmail Uçar, Expedited Procedure in Administrative Litigation Law: The Case of France and Turkey, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University, Master's Thesis, Ankara, 2023.