Hadiputri, Cynthia Tan
(2018)
Analisis yuridis penyelesaian sengketa pendudukan tanah secara melawan hukum tanpa alas hak kepemilikan yang sah (studi putusan no. 263/pdt.G/2011/pn.Tng) = Juridical analysis on wrongful occupation of land without grounds of legitimate ownership rights.
Bachelor thesis, Universitas Pelita Harapan.
Full text not available from this repository.
Abstract
The differing needs and interests of each individual in the society upon land triggers the occurrence of land disputes. Within court verdict No. 263/PDT.G/2011/PN.TNG, the Defendant occupies the Plaintiff’s land without the ground of legitimate ownership right in the form of a sale and purchase deed which is against the prevailing laws, specifically as regulated within Government Regulation Number 24 Year 1997 on Land Registration and Government Regulation Number 24 Year 2016 on The Amendment of Government Regulation Number 37 Year 1998 on Regulation of Land Titles Registrar (“PPAT”). The Panel of Judges adjudicates that the Defendant’s act is an act against the law and that the sale & purchase deed formulated by the Defendant and their PPAT is invalid and has is not binding by law. The said verdict is strengthened by the High Court of Banten’s verdict No. 60/PDT/2012/PT.BTN. The Defendant ultimately proceeded with further legal actions by submitting a cassation, however was rejected by the Supreme Court through verdict No. 1236 K/PDT/2013. The purpose of this research’s formulation is to analyze the dispute settlement and understand the legal considerations as well as judge’s verdict upon the said case. This research is conducted with a juridical normative method as well as the statute and case approach. The result of this research finds that the dispute settlement as mentioned above has been in line with the fact findings in the court proceeding and the prevailing laws and regulations. The Panel of Judges of the District Court verdict No. 263/PDT.G/2011/PN.TNG has also provided legal certainty for both parties. However, Panel of Judges of the District Court within the said case has been proven to be negligent in examining the legality of the deed formulated by the sub-district head (Camat) as a temporary PPAT in the said case because the following conduct is against his duty and authority by formulating a transitional deed of land ownership right which has not been certified and is against the law by being a PPAT for his own family, which is the Defendant, therefore the ground of right used by the Defendant becomes invalid.
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
