Crichel Down Rules in terms of the Repurchase of the Compulsory Purchased Land by the Former Owner

Harun Yılmaz

Makale detayları

Crichel Down Rules in terms of the Repurchase of the Compulsory Purchased Land by the Former Owner

Yazarlar:

Harun Yılmaz

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Public Law (Other)

Dergi:

İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.83 Issue 2, pp.708-726

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001360177

pISSN:

2636-7734

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 The Crichel Down affair that occurred in England had important consequences regarding political responsibility of ministers and ombudsman institution, and it also set ground for Crichel Down rules, which constitute the procedure for repurchase of compulsorily purchased land by former owner. Rules regulate that the land that was compulsorily purchased or acquired through purchasing method is surplus and determined to be disposed of by government should first be offered to former owners or their successors. Although rules have the potential to fill a significant gap in terms of purpose, due to absence of a provision regulating the right of the former owner to reclaim in current legislation, some criticisms are directed at the rules. The most serious criticisms directed at rules that impose mandatory compliance for some institutions while leaving it to discretion for others is perhaps their lack of legal basis. As it stands, rules lack granting individuals a right that can be asserted and protected by law. The rules created as a guideline by a ministry in England evolved haphazardly over time, leading to lack of unity and consistency in implementation. Failure to clearly define certain exceptions where rules will not be applied and use of exemplary methods for some exceptions led to debates about arbitrary enforcement. This study will provide information on compulsory purchase and repurchase of compulsorily purchased land and then will examine Crichel Down affair, its effects beyond compulsive purchase law, and Crichel Down rules that appear as its effect on compulsive purchase law.

 The Crichel Down affair that occurred in England had important consequences regarding political responsibility of ministers and ombudsman institution, and it also set ground for Crichel Down rules, which constitute the procedure for repurchase of compulsorily purchased land by former owner. Rules regulate that the land that was compulsorily purchased or acquired through purchasing method is surplus and determined to be disposed of by government should first be offered to former owners or their successors. Although rules have the potential to fill a significant gap in terms of purpose, due to absence of a provision regulating the right of the former owner to reclaim in current legislation, some criticisms are directed at the rules. The most serious criticisms directed at rules that impose mandatory compliance for some institutions while leaving it to discretion for others is perhaps their lack of legal basis. As it stands, rules lack granting individuals a right that can be asserted and protected by law. The rules created as a guideline by a ministry in England evolved haphazardly over time, leading to lack of unity and consistency in implementation. Failure to clearly define certain exceptions where rules will not be applied and use of exemplary methods for some exceptions led to debates about arbitrary enforcement. This study will provide information on compulsory purchase and repurchase of compulsorily purchased land and then will examine Crichel Down affair, its effects beyond compulsive purchase law, and Crichel Down rules that appear as its effect on compulsive purchase law.

 The Crichel Down affair that occurred in England had important consequences regarding political responsibility of ministers and ombudsman institution, and it also set ground for Crichel Down rules, which constitute the procedure for repurchase of compulsorily purchased land by former owner. Rules regulate that the land that was compulsorily purchased or acquired through purchasing method is surplus and determined to be disposed of by government should first be offered to former owners or their successors. Although rules have the potential to fill a significant gap in terms of purpose, due to absence of a provision regulating the right of the former owner to reclaim in current legislation, some criticisms are directed at the rules. The most serious criticisms directed at rules that impose mandatory compliance for some institutions while leaving it to discretion for others is perhaps their lack of legal basis. As it stands, rules lack granting individuals a right that can be asserted and protected by law. The rules created as a guideline by a ministry in England evolved haphazardly over time, leading to lack of unity and consistency in implementation. Failure to clearly define certain exceptions where rules will not be applied and use of exemplary methods for some exceptions led to debates about arbitrary enforcement. This study will provide information on compulsory purchase and repurchase of compulsorily purchased land and then will examine Crichel Down affair, its effects beyond compulsive purchase law, and Crichel Down rules that appear as its effect on compulsive purchase law.

 İngilterede meydana gelen Crichel Down meselesi, bir yandan bakanların siyasi sorumluluğu ve ombudsmanlık kurumuna dair önemli sonuçlar doğurmuş, diğer yandan kamulaştırılan malın eski malik tarafından geri alınmasına ilişkin prosedürü oluşturan Crichel Down kurallarına zemin hazırlamıştır. Basit anlatımla kurallar, kamulaştırılan ya da kamulaştırma sürecinde denenen satın alma yöntemiyle elde edilip ihtiyaç fazlası haline gelen ve idare tarafından elden çıkarılacağı belirlenen malın öncelikle eski sahiplerine veya onların mirasçılarına teklif edilmesini düzenle7 mektedir. Hali hazırda mevzuatta eski malikin geri alma hakkını düzenleyen bir hükme rastlanmaması hasebiyle kurallar yöneldiği amaç bakımından önemli bir eksikliği giderme potansiyeline sahip olsalar da kurallara doktrinde kimi eleştiriler yöneltilmektedir. Bazı kurumlar için uyma zorunluluğu getirilip bazıları için uyulması takdire bırakılan kurallara yöneltilen eleştirilerden belki de en ciddisi, kanuni dayanağa sahip olmamalarıdır. Bu haliyle kurallar ilgililere kanunla ileri sürülüp korunabilecek bir hak tanımaktan yoksundur. İngilterede bir bakanlık tarafından kılavuz şeklinde meydana getirilen kurallar zaman içerisinde gelişigüzel gelişmiş, kuralların uygulamasında birlik ve tutarlılık sağlanamamıştır. Yine kuralların uygulanmayacağı kimi istisnaların açıkça belirlenmeyip bazı istisnalar için örneklendirici yönteme gidilmesi, keyfi uygulama tartışmalarını beraberinde getirmiştir. Kamulaştırma müessesesi ve kamulaştırılan malın geri alınması hakkında bilgiler verilerek başlanacak çalışmada, İngilterede meydana gelen Crichel Down meselesi, meselenin kamulaştırma hukuku dışındaki etkileri ve meselenin kamulaştırma hukukuna etkisi olarak karşımıza çıkan Crichel Down kuralları inceleme konusu yapılacaktır.

Makale detayları

Crichel Down Rules in terms of the Repurchase of the Compulsory Purchased Land by the Former Owner

Yazarlar:

Harun Yılmaz

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Public Law (Other)

Dergi:

İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.83 Issue 2, pp.708-726

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001360177

pISSN:

2636-7734

Crichel Down rules

Crichel Down affair

Right of repurchase

Compulsory purchase

Political responsibility ofministers

OmbudsmanshipCrichel Down kuralları

Crichel Down meselesi

Geri alma hakkı

Kamulaştırma

Bakanların siyasi sorumluluğu

Ombudsmanlık

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Harun Yılmaz

Yayıncı: Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar: Public Law (Other)

Dergi: İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.83 Issue 2, pp.708-726

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 8/2025

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001360177

pISSN: 2636-7734

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Harun Yılmaz

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Public Law (Other)

Dergi:

İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.83 Issue 2, pp.708-726

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001360177

pISSN:

2636-7734