Turkish 
English 
Russian 
German 
Forest Law Additional Article 23 allows the General Directorate of Forestry to apply 2/B again to areas annulled by a court or left out in the minutes.
The provision was added to Forest Law No. 6831 by Article 15 of Law No. 7584 of 11 June 2026 and entered into force on 20 June 2026, the date the Law was published in the Official Gazette. In localities where a 2/B application has already been carried out, it allows a new 2/B application in two groups of areas. The first group consists of places that met the 2/B conditions but whose application was annulled by court decision on grounds not listed in the Law. The second group consists of places left out because the minutes stated that "the application has been completed". The new application does not count as a second cadastre. The review is carried out by the General Directorate of Forestry (OGM).
This guide explains the scope of Additional Article 23, the cases outside its scope, the question of applications and time limits, its effect on pending lawsuits, how it differs from Additional Article 22 and the most common mistakes in the process, based on the text of the Law and the case law of the Court of Cassation.
What Is Additional Article 23 of the Forest Law?
Additional Article 23 of the Forest Law is a corrective provision for places where applications based on subparagraph (B) of Article 2 of Law No. 6831, known in short as 2/B applications, were left incomplete or set aside by the courts. A 2/B application is the exclusion from forest boundaries of land that had completely lost its forest character in scientific and technical terms before 31.12.1981 and is used as fields, vineyards, orchards, olive groves, pasture or as a settlement.
Under Additional Article 23, the OGM will carry out a review. In the two groups of areas found in this review to meet the 2/B conditions, a 2/B application may be carried out again. The provision states expressly that this new application will not count as a second cadastre. The ground that led to the annulment of such applications for years has thus been removed at the level of statute.
Forest Law No. 6831, Additional Article 23 (added: 11/6/2026, Law No. 7584, Art. 15) — unofficial translation“…applications under subparagraph (B) of the first paragraph of Article 2 may be carried out. These applications shall not be deemed a second cadastre.”
Which Areas Does Additional Article 23 Cover?
According to the text of the Law, the scope of Additional Article 23 consists of two groups. Both share the same condition: the property must meet the conditions of Article 2(B), and the OGM review must establish this.
| First group | Second group | |
|---|---|---|
| Situation | A 2/B application was carried out and later annulled by court decision | The 2/B minutes state "application completed / no further area", and the area was left out |
| Condition | The ground for annulment is not one of the reasons expressly listed in the Law | The minutes do not expressly state that the area fails to meet the 2/B conditions |
| Time limit | The annulment decision was given before Additional Article 23 entered into force | None |
| Result | A new 2/B application may be carried out | A new 2/B application may be carried out |
Additional Article 23 was not written for places where no 2/B application has ever been made, but for areas annulled or left out in a locality where a 2/B application was carried out. This is the first question that decides whether a property falls within its scope.
What Are the “Reasons Expressly Listed in the Law”?
In the first group, the decisive factor is the ground on which the 2/B application was annulled. Article 2 of Law No. 6831 lists the places where 2/B cannot be applied: protection forests, national park areas, nature parks, nature conservation areas, forest areas subject to permits and easements, places taken under the forest regime under Article 3, and burnt forest areas. In addition, the land must have completely lost its forest character before 31.12.1981.
If the annulment decision is based on one of these reasons, the property does not fall within Additional Article 23. If the decision is based on another ground, the position is different. The most common example in practice is a later 2/B application being treated as a “duplicate”, that is, a second cadastre. Land subject to such decisions appears to be among the typical areas the provision targets.
Identifying the ground for annulment is not always as easy as it seems. A single decision may contain more than one ground. The expert report and the reasoning of the judgment may rely on different points. The reasoning may have changed at the reversal and affirmation stages. Misreading the reasoning has consequences in both directions: a property within the scope may be thought to be outside it, or false expectations may arise for a property outside the scope. For this reason, the assessment should be made by reading the decision and the entire case file together, not only the operative part of the judgment.
An Example from Antalya: Annulment on the Ground of “Second Cadastre”
In a village in Antalya, after a cadastral survey carried out in 1991 became final in 1993, a second 2/B survey was carried out at the same place in 1994. This survey excluded 22 parcels from forest boundaries. In the lawsuit brought by the forest administration, it was decided that these parcels be delimited as forest again, and the Court of Cassation upheld the decision:
Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 8th Civil Chamber, Docket 2022/7118, Decision 2024/6520, 18.11.2024 — unofficial translation“…that the second cadastral survey excluding [the parcels] from forest delimitation in the name of the Treasury be deemed null and void with all its consequences under Article 22 of Law No. 3402…”
This decision did not discuss whether the 2/B conditions were met. The application was declared void solely because of the prohibition of a second cadastre. The sentence in Additional Article 23, “These applications shall not be deemed a second cadastre”, targets exactly this kind of outcome. However, how a final court decision will be affected for a particular property depends on the review the OGM carries out and on its result.
Is There an Application or a Time Limit for Additional Article 23?
This is the most important difference from Additional Article 22. Additional Article 23 provides for neither an application procedure nor an application deadline. The provision states that the application may be carried out “as a result of reviews to be conducted by the General Directorate of Forestry”, meaning the process is driven by the administration's own review.
No provision prevents users or possessors from notifying the regional directorate in writing. However, such a petition does not create an application right of the kind found in Additional Article 22, which would oblige the administration to decide within a set period. The provision uses “may be carried out” rather than “shall be applied”, which shows that the application depends on the administration's assessment. The technical procedure for 2/B work is carried out under the Regulation on Forest Cadastre and 2/B Application.
The absence of an application right does not mean the process will run automatically or in the person's favour. The review is based on cadastral minutes, forest cadastre maps, old aerial photographs and court decisions. If documents showing that the land lost its forest character before 31.12.1981, evidence of actual use and the reasoning of the annulment decision are not placed before the administration completely and accurately, the area may be overlooked in the review or assessed as outside the scope. For this reason, the content of a written notice to the administration is at least as important as the notice itself.
What Happens If There Is a Pending Lawsuit Concerning the Property?
Under Additional Article 23, if there are lawsuits concerning properties in areas where a 2/B application is carried out, the OGM notifies the court of its work. The provision regulates nothing beyond this. The rules found in Additional Article 22, such as not filing lawsuits, treating the process as a preliminary question or declaring lawsuits devoid of subject, do not exist here.
In other words, in a pending forest cadastre or 2/B annulment lawsuit, the court will assess how the new work is reflected in the file on the basis of the notified work. While the lawsuit is pending, the timely and correct entry of the new application into the file is one of the procedural steps that can directly affect the outcome.
Once the OGM's notification enters the file, the parties also have steps to take. These include responding to the notification, requesting a new site inspection and expert examination where necessary, and asking that no decision be given before the new application becomes final. Failing to take these steps in time may lead to an adverse decision becoming final even though Additional Article 23 offered a way out. A final decision, as a rule, cannot be reopened.
Who Owns the Land After a 2/B Application?
Additional Article 23 does not, by itself, give anyone a title deed. What it provides is that the area can again be excluded from forest boundaries as a 2/B parcel. Under Article 2 of Law No. 6831, land excluded from forest boundaries is excluded in the name of the Treasury if it belongs to the State. Once the application becomes final, correction and registration are made at the land registry. The disposal of land excluded from forest boundaries in the name of the Treasury and its sale to those entitled are carried out under Law No. 6292.
For the user or possessor, the process has several stages. First, the 2/B application is carried out. Next, actual use is documented; how this is done is explained in our article on establishing possession on 2/B land. Finally comes the sale process. A right lost at one stage often cannot be made good at a later stage.
What Is the Difference Between Additional Article 22 and Additional Article 23?
Both provisions were added on the same day by Law No. 7584, but they were written for different people and different situations.
| Additional Article 22 | Additional Article 23 | |
|---|---|---|
| For whom? | An owner with a title deed whose property was placed within forest boundaries | The user or possessor of land within a 2/B area |
| What does it provide? | Recognition of the title deed as valid free of charge, or return of an annulled title deed | A new 2/B application (exclusion from forest boundaries) |
| Application | Yes (the owner or former owner applies) | Not provided for in the Law; OGM review |
| Time limit | 2 years for land registered to the Treasury (until 20.06.2028) | None |
| Title result | In the owner's name | In the name of the Treasury; then the Law No. 6292 process |
| Competent court | Civil court of first instance where the property is located | No special provision |
If you hold a title deed and the land was found to be “forest”, the relevant provision is Additional Article 22; details are in our Additional Article 22 guide, and the application steps are in our article on the Additional Article 22 application. If land you use without a title deed could not benefit from 2/B, the provision to look at is Additional Article 23.
In Which Cases Does Additional Article 23 Not Help?
- If the land had not completely lost its forest character before 31.12.1981, that is, if it is still wooded today or was cleared later,
- If the 2/B annulment is based on one of the reasons listed in Article 2 (protection forest, national park, burnt forest area, etc.),
- If the minutes expressly state that the area does not meet the 2/B conditions,
- If no 2/B application has ever been carried out in the locality; in that case the matter falls not under Additional Article 23 but under the general forest cadastre and objection procedures.
These four filters decide from the outset whether Additional Article 23 can be relied on. This requires reading the minutes, the map and the court decision together. Drawing conclusions from a single document can be misleading.
What Are the Common Mistakes in the Additional Article 23 Process?
Under Additional Article 23, losses of rights usually arise not from the provision itself but from misreading the process. The most frequent mistakes in practice are:
- Confusing Additional Article 22 with Additional Article 23: If an owner with a title deed waits, believing the case falls under Additional Article 23, the two-year period under Additional Article 22 (until 20.06.2028 for land registered to the Treasury) may expire. This period is a strict limitation period.
- Reading only the operative part of the annulment decision: It is the reasoning that determines the scope. A conclusion reached without examining the reasoning together with the reversal and affirmation decisions and the expert reports will be misleading.
- Interpreting a statement in the minutes on its own: “There is no further area for application” and “does not meet the 2/B conditions” lead to different results. Which one was written, and what it covers, should be verified on the map.
- Leaving evidence of possession until later: Witnesses who know the old use, old photographs and tax, agricultural or village headman records are lost over time. The determination of use after the 2/B application and the sale stage rely on this evidence.
- Not following up the notification in a pending lawsuit: The OGM's notification to the court does not automatically produce a favourable result. Statements and requests must be made in response to it.
- Missing the stage after 2/B: Land excluded from forest boundaries is registered in the name of the Treasury. The user's right is protected by complying with the entitlement, application and payment conditions under Law No. 6292.
The Additional Article 23 process lies at the intersection of cadastral law, forest legislation and procedural law. The outcome does not depend on a single step but on interlinked stages: determining scope, the documents submitted to the administration, managing any pending lawsuit, the determination of use and the sale. A shortcoming at one stage often cannot be remedied at a later stage. Assessing the minutes, the map, the court decision and the evidence of possession together and from a legal perspective from the outset minimises the risk of losing rights.
Frequently Asked Questions About Additional Article 23 of the Forest Law
When did Additional Article 23 of the Forest Law enter into force?
Additional Article 23 was added by Article 15 of Law No. 7584 of 11.06.2026. The Law was published in the Official Gazette of 20.06.2026, and this provision entered into force on the date of publication.
Can an application be made via e-Devlet or to the OGM under Additional Article 23?
The Law does not provide for an application procedure. The application depends on the review to be carried out by the General Directorate of Forestry. However, for the review to reach the right result, it is important that the documents and evidence showing that the land meets the 2/B conditions are submitted to the administration in full.
Is there a deadline under Additional Article 23?
No. There is no time limit in this provision like the two-year period in Additional Article 22.
Will land whose 2/B status was annulled be returned automatically?
No. The provision says a new 2/B application “may be carried out”. This depends on the OGM finding that the land meets the 2/B conditions.
If a new 2/B application is made, will the title deed be issued in the user's name?
No. Land belonging to the State is excluded from forest boundaries in the name of the Treasury. The user's right concerns the subsequent determination of use and the sale process under Law No. 6292.
What happens to a pending 2/B annulment lawsuit?
The General Directorate of Forestry notifies the court of its work. The court decides the outcome of the case taking this notification into account.
Are 2/B parcels annulled on the ground of a “second cadastre” covered by Additional Article 23?
The provision states expressly that the new applications will not be deemed a second cadastre. Annulments on this ground are therefore among the typical situations the provision targets. The scope is still determined property by property through the OGM review.
