No

Land Dispute Resolution

Description of Settlement of Land Dispute Cases

1.

Non-Litigasi

1) The case of land dispute over property rights and its resolution through alternative mediation that occurred in Blulukan Village, Colomadu District, Kranganyar involving the Head of Blukukan Village.

a) This case started when in 2012 a property entrepreneur named Candra bought a plot of land with an area of 2785 m². The land is located in Blulukan Village with a title certificate in the name of Sayem. Before carrying out the sale and purchase transaction, Candra has repeatedly consulted the Karanganyar Land Office and checked the land. The Karanganyar Land Office has also stated that the land with ownership certificates in Sayem’s name is valid. However, in mid-2013, there was a report to the Karanganyar Prosecutor’s Office stating that the land purchased by Candra was part of the village treasury land, because previously there had been an exchange of land between Sayem’s land in Serangan Hamlet and land owned by the village treasury in Blulukan Hamlet between Head of Blulukan Village with Sayem. In this regard, approximately 785 m² of the 2785 m² land belongs to Blukukan Village (Sulistifani, 2018) .

b) Handling the dispute is resolved by means of mediation. The mediation institution at the National Land Agency (“BPN”) of Karanganyar Regency in the mediation process uses several models of dispute resolution, including: settlement mediation, in order to have the main objective of encouraging the realization of a compromise from the demands of the two parties to the dispute; facilitative mediation, in order to have the objective of avoiding the positions of the disputing parties and negotiating the needs and interests of the parties; transformative mediation, in order to find the causes of disputes; evaluation mediation, in order to seek agreement based on legal rights (Sulistifani, 2018) .

2.

Litigasi

2) The caseS of customary land disputes in the decision of the Supreme Court Decision Number 3064 K/Pdt/2010 which has permanent legal force. On January 23, 1973

a) Thonce Bonay Upuya as the cassation respondent/plaintiff obtained a plot of land handed over according to custom from Mr. Demianus Tanawani, as the land owner, and as the biological parents of the cassation applicant/defendant with a land area of 7397 m² (Indrawati et al., 2022: p. 2) . The handover of the land was based on a family relationship between the wife of Mr. Demianus Tanawani named Yuliana Mundoni, as the plaintiff’s wife, Helena Mundoni’s older sister. The plaintiff and his family manage, care for, and maintain the piece of land, by gardening, planting long-term crops, and building 1 permanent house (Indrawati et al., 2022: p. 2) . On April 11, 1986, Mr. Demianus Tanawani came to the plaintiff to witness the designation of the land boundary, which was witnessed by Defendants II and III.

b) Then, in 1989 there was one of the programs of the South Yapen sub-district head, namely controlling the administration of land ownership, so that on August 1, 1989 a Land Acquisition Letter was drawn up which legitimized the verbal relinquishment by Mr. Demianus Tanawani to the plaintiff. In April 2009, the defendants carried out the construction of a residential house on the plaintiff’s land. The actions of the defendants led to the demolition of 1 semi-permanent housing unit belonging to the plaintiff which caused the plaintiff to lose Rp. 25 million (Indrawati et al., 2022: p. 3) . The actions of the defendants led to threats that led to physical clashes and disturbed family peace and public order. The actions of the defendants can also cause the plaintiff to suffer losses from the loss of part of the land that was built for the building and loss of income from the monthly house rental price, amounting to Rp. 500 thousand × 6 months = Rp. 3 million (Indrawati et al., 2022: p. 3) . Based on these legal facts, the Plaintiff chooses to resolve this land dispute through a legal process. At the cassation level, the Supreme Court is of the opinion that the object of the dispute is customary land belonging to the parents of the cassation applicant/defendant, which was given to the cassation respondent/plaintiff, as a grant without any traditional ceremony (Indrawati et al., 2022: p. 12) . Based on the evidence of the cassation respondent/plaintiff in the form of the Customary Court Conciliation Decree December 9, 2009, the Customary Court decided that the customary land was divided into 2, namely the south side was handed over to Thonce Bonay Upuya, and the north side was handed over to Darius Tanawani (defendant II) (Indrawati et al., 2022: p. 12) . Apart from that, the land was only leased and the land certificate was stated to have been engineered, because based on the evidence, the certificate of waiver of land rights dated August 1, 1989 submitted by the cassation respondent/plaintiff was wrong. The content of the customary waiver letter is legally flawed because the signature of the cassation applicant II was falsified by the cassation respondent/plaintiff. The relinquishment of rights must be canceled because of the absolute rights of the Tanawani family (Indrawati et al., 2022: p. 12) .

c) Horizontal ethnic conflict arose, so based on local wisdom, the Peaceful Decision of the Customary Court of December 9, 2009 should be implemented (Indrawati et al., 2022: p. 12) . Thus, the Supreme Court granted the cassation request from the Cassation Petitioners, and upheld the Conciliation Decision of the Customary Court Number: 85/KDPA/DAP-WTC/DY/XII/2009, in order to maintain stability, balance and harmony among ethnic groups in Serui (Indrawati et al., 2022: p. 13) .

3) The Cases of inherited land disputes and their resolution, namely the Supreme Court Decision Number 1989 K/PDT/2001

a) The object of the dispute is land belonging to the plaintiff/respondent on cassation which was obtained from his mother named Sitti binti Bitte. His mother loaned Hadda some land to work on temporarily. Then, Hadda died in 1990, and in 1991 Sitti binti Bitte also died (Indrawati et al., 2022: p. 1) . Thus, the object of the dispute is then controlled and worked on by the defendant/applicant for cassation. However, the defendant’s actions were not notified/permitted by the plaintiff, so the defendant’s actions were against the law (Indrawati et al., 2022: p. 1) . Based on these legal facts, the plaintiff chose to resolve this dispute to the Watampone District Court by submitting a request stating that the object of the dispute is legally owned by the plaintiff which was obtained from his mother named Sitti binti Bitte as inherited land and stated that the object of the dispute has the status of a Hadda loan from Sitti binti Bitte (Indrawati et al., 2022: pp. 1-2) .

b) In its decision, the Supreme Court is of the opinion that based on all the letters and witnesses submitted by the plaintiff when linked to one another, there is sufficient evidence to state that the land object in dispute belongs to Sitti binti Bitte which later falls into the inheritance of the plaintiff (Indrawati et al., 2022: p. 4) . Thus, the court rejected the cassation request from the cassation applicant/defendant (Indrawati et al., 2022: p. 6) .

4) Matoa Land Dispute Case in 2021

a) This dispute stems from the cooperation agreement period which expires on March 18 2021 and the lawsuit regarding violations of cooperation that was filed by PT Saranagraha Adisentosa to the South Jakarta District Court in March 2021. Referring to the Decree of the Minister of Finance Number 470/KMK.01/1994 dated September 20, 1994 which regulates cooperation using the build, operate and hand over format or BOT. In the amendment, it is stated that the cooperation will take place from 18 March 1996 to 18 March 2021 and will be extended for 5 years after the end of the agreement in question (Tim Editorial Rumah.com, 2022) . The cooperation agreement is considered to have expired and the lack of permission from the Minister of Finance, according to the Department of Agriculture, is the reason for PT Saranagraha to stop utilizing Matoa’s land. In addition, this land is also said to be used for national defense purposes.

b) Until now, controlling the assets of State Property (BMN) is a follow-up step from this dispute case that has been carried out by the Indonesian Air Force (TNI AU) (Tim Editorial Rumah.com, 2022) .

5) The 2021 Salve Veritate Land Dispute Case.

a) The case in the land mafia case involved mal-administration of the issuance of Certificate of Ownership (SHM) Number 4931/West Cakung in the name of Abdul Halim, in Cakung, East Jakarta, with a land area of 7.78 hectares. Initially, PT Salve Veritate, which is the land owner was shocked and did not accept it when his land became the object of a dispute because it was recognized by another person. The land owned by PT Salve Veritate totaling 38 plots with a total area of 77,582 square meters located in Cakung Barat Subdistrict, East Jakarta, has the status of Building Use Rights (HGB) (Tim Editorial Rumah.com, 2022) .

b) Following up on the attorney’s report, finally the Ministry of ATR/BPN checked the completeness of the land documents which were originally in the name of PT Salve Veritate. After checking, PT Salve Veritate’s HGB Certificate did not find anything that made the examining team believe that the certificate issuance process as mentioned above was not in accordance with procedures (Tim Editorial Rumah.com, 2022) .

6) The 2020 Alam Sutera Land Dispute Case.

a) Starting with the suspect with the initials D pretending to be in conflict with suspect M over a 45 hectare land in Alam Sutera. In April 2020, D filed a civil lawsuit against M regarding ownership of the land. Even though the land already has residents and companies occupying it. In May 2020, M and D then conspired to reconcile and mediate the land dispute case. After a peace agreement was reached, in July 2020 the land mafia gang submitted a request for land execution to the Court (Tim Editorial Rumah.com, 2022) .

b) This immediately met resistance from residents and companies who reported it to the Tangerang City Metro Police. From the results of the investigation, the files claiming ownership of the 45 hectares of land turned out to be fake. The two of them even submitted the file to the Court to sue each other. The suspects are currently being charged under Articles 263 and 266 of the Criminal Code concerning forgery of documents with the threat of 7 years in prison (Tim Editorial Rumah.com, 2022) .