29.12.2025 12:21
It has been revealed that Necati Yılmaz, one of the lawyers in a land case worth billions of dollars in Antalya, has filed a complaint against three judges handling the case with the Judges and Prosecutors Council (HSK) on the grounds of "abuse of power," and has also initiated a compensation lawsuit against them.
It has emerged that Necati Yılmaz, one of the lawyers in a land case worth billions of dollars in Antalya, has complained to the Judges and Prosecutors Council (HSK) about the three judges handling the case on the grounds of 'misuse of duty' and has also filed a compensation lawsuit against them.
A CASE CONTINUING FOR 67 YEARS The case regarding the 2 million 400 thousand square meters of land registered in the name of Arab Suleiman, Hacı Bekirzade Mehmet Ağa, and the Treasury, which includes the Meltem and Bahçelievler neighborhoods and Konyaaltı Beach Park, one of the most valuable areas of the city, has been ongoing for 67 years since the Antalya Cadastre Court in 2006. Due to new claims of heirs that have emerged and the precautionary decisions of the courts in this context, some judges of the case have also become subjects of complaints and legal disputes.
Lawyer Necati Yılmaz, who has been following the case on behalf of some heirs of Hacı Bekirzade Mehmet Ağa and Arab Suleiman for over 20 years, stated, "The main issue is that this is actually an unfounded case. The return of the trial is regulated in Article 375 of the Civil Procedure Code (HMK). They filed a lawsuit regarding the cancellation of the inheritance of Arab Suleiman Ağa, which was the basis for the judgment given in the trial that started in 1958 and ended in 2006, at the 4th Civil Court of Peace. Article 375 of the HMK states, 'The cancellation of that inheritance will be decided, the decision will become final, and then you can request the return of the trial.' However, this was an early lawsuit. We stated this many times during the return of the trial ongoing at the Cadastre Court. However, the authorized judge who made the decision at that time rejected our request," he said.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Lawyer Yılmaz, who explained that other judges came in place of the previous ones and that they corrected their same requests there, said, "We said, 'Look, the conditions for requesting the return of the trial have not yet occurred here. The 4th Civil Court of Peace will decide on the cancellation of the inheritance, this decision will become final, and then this application can be made.' Article 379 of the HMK states, 'The lawsuit opened without this condition being fulfilled is decided to be rejected procedurally.' We said, 'Please decide to reject it procedurally.' The 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation did not accept it. When it was not accepted, I also filed a criminal complaint with the HSK regarding the three judges handling this file in February 2019," he said.
4 HEARINGS IN 4 MONTHS Lawyer Yılmaz stated that a decision was made to reject the case procedurally in accordance with Article 379 of the HMK after 4 hearings in 4 months, saying, "This was the correct decision, and this decision given in 2019 was sent back twice by the 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation for procedural reasons. They said, 'The notification is incomplete, not regular,' and so on. As a result, in 2023, our request was rejected again with the participation of the judge conducting the trial at the Cadastre Court. According to Article 375 of the HMK, it should have been finalized, but a decision will be made in the case seen at the 4th Civil Court of Peace. That decision will become final. After that, this lawsuit should be opened, but the 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation deemed it sufficient for the case to have been opened in its decision to lift. They said, 'Wait for the result of this case.' Thus, an absurd situation arose. The cancellation decision should have been made regarding the cancellation of a ruling that was the basis for the judgment, and this decision should have been finalized, yet the 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation deemed it sufficient for this application to have been made," he said.
THE LOCAL JUDGE ALSO LOOKED AT THE APPEAL Yılmaz stated that a judge who was authorized to handle this case in the local court should not have looked at the same file during the appeal review, saying, "At least ethically, they should not look at it. We submitted another petition regarding this. We said, 'The judge has looked at this file as an authorized judge. In fact, they have also decided to reject our requests. They have also established an interim decision. Therefore, it is not correct for a judge who looks at a file in the local court to participate in the appeal or review of this file in the higher court. It is not legally correct, nor is it ethically correct. Therefore, the decision you made is null and void. Please withdraw this decision, correct it. Make a new decision.' Additionally, Article 375 of the law is clear and straightforward enough that it does not require any interpretation. This case is based on the cancellation of a court ruling that is the basis for the judgment being nullified by another finalized court decision. However, you deem it sufficient for the case to have been opened. Article 46 of the HMK also requires the legal responsibility of the judge. Article 46 states, 'If a judge acts contrary to a legal provision that is clear enough not to require any interpretation, the judge is legally responsible.'
A COMPENSATION LAWSUIT HAS ALSO BEEN FILED Lawyer Yılmaz noted that the responsibility here lies with the Ministry of Justice according to the HMK, stating, "The Ministry of Justice is responsible for the damages caused by the judge. We have also filed a compensation lawsuit against the Ministry of Justice at the 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation. It is being seen with the case number 2025/2. We filed a compensation lawsuit against the presiding judge and two member judges who made the decision. They have also submitted their responses to the lawsuit. The trial is ongoing. Since the Ministry of Justice has the right to recourse regarding this when they lose the case and the decision becomes final," he said.
'IF IT GOES TO THE COURT OF CASSATION, THE CASE WILL BE RESOLVED' Lawyer Yılmaz recalled that they filed a criminal complaint with the HSK against the president of the 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation and the two members who participated in the decision, saying, "Because this is misuse of duty. The law is very clear. They cannot make decisions contrary to the clear provisions of the law. They cannot say, 'I interpret it this way.' They have no such right. Therefore, this case has fallen back before the Cadastre Court. In other words, the file is not going to the Court of Cassation at all. We know and see that when it goes to the Court of Cassation, this case will be resolved. The compensation lawsuit we filed is not to receive compensation, but to ensure that the file somehow goes to the Court of Cassation," he said.