1- STATUS OF CONTRADICTION TO ONE ANOTHER OF OVERSCALED AND SUBSCALED PLANS
In general, plans in Public Improvement Law are separated into graded ranks as area plan, environment plan, master public improvement plan and application public improvement plan and it is imposed obligation that subscaled plans are compatible to planning main principles, strategies and decisions determined in overscaled plans.
According to legislative conditions stated above, it is beyond doubt that application public improvement plans can not be contradictory to overscaled plans, land use decisions can not be changed with subscaled public improvement application plans.
A definition is made in parallel with Public Improvement Law also in Regulations Pertaining Bases Regarding Planning and it is stated that public improvement plan contradictory to principles, bases and decisions of environment plan.
In accordance with legal regulations, as part of hierarchy among plans; if there is environment plan in a area, it is necessary that the public improvement plans to be carried out in that area (master public improvement plan and application public improvement) is in accordance with this plan and that application public improvement plan which will be made after master public improvement plan made in accordance with environment plan is also in accordance with overscaled plans.
As implied on decisions of Council of State; in the event that accordance among planning grades laid down by public improvement law is not protected, namely if subscaled plan or plan modification is not prepared in accordance with overscaled (for 1/5000, 1/25.000, 1/50.000 or 1/100.000) plan (for example; the fact that an immovable – such as trade, residence, industry public improvement - which is zoned in plan for 1/25.000 is closed to public improvement in newly prepared plan for 1/5000 – such as green space, road, school area), this situation may be a reason for cancellation and by also considering special situations of each event, cancellation of subscaled plans can be demanded from the Administrative Court.

2- THE SITUATION THAT WITHIN THE SAME PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHILE A PARCEL IS PERMITTED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, THE OTHER PARCEL DOES NOT HAVE PERMISSION FOR STRUCTURING BY REASONS SUCH AS ROAD, GREEN SPACE, SCHOOL.
In bans of public improvement plan, it is required that establishment of a fair balance is between common public interests and property right of individuals is provided and the load of proceedings carried out through legal ways for public interest should not be absolutely left on some immovable owners.
In a newly composed plan, if while some immovable within the same area are given permission for public improvement such as trade-industry-residence; adjacent immovable are left without public improvement by reasons such as infrastructure area of green space, road, school, culture-health-technical, then these are attitudes corruptive for fair balance and sense of equity that the state-administrations must protect and favor and cancellation of such arrangements can be demanded from the Administrative Courts, too.
.
3- CONDEMNATION PROBLEMS OF IMMOVABLE WHICH ARE NOT PERMITTED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, ALLOCATED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
In our country; immovable are not permitted for public improvement by reasons such as green space, road, school, culture-health-technical infrastructure, and it is indefinite when condemnation will be carried out.
Demands of immovable owners regarding whether condemnation of their locations or being permitted for public improvement are generally rejected by the administrations, reasons are given such as condemnation will be carried out when it is included into investment program, allowance is provided, or when it is needed.
The fact that such long standing building prohibitions disturb the balance between public social utility and personal interests has been underlined especially by decisions of European Court of Human Rights, and Administration Courts can be applied again by considering special conditions of each situation.