This research used a case study which discussed about land dispute case between registered certificate of ownership and customary land certificate. The case got a verdict which has permanent legal force (inkracht van gewijsde), namely Verdict Number 10 PK/TUN/2020 January 30, 2020. In this first degree case, the Plaintiff that his interests have been harmed due to the issuance of disputed object certificate on behalf of Defendant II Intervention which caused the Plaintiff to lose the rights to the Plaintiff's land. The court granted the Plaintiff's claim to declare it null and void and revoke the Defendant's certificate because procedurally and substantively the issuance of the dispute object certificate does not meet the regulated conditions in Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 especially regarding Measurement and Mapping. This is corroborated by the decision on appeal. On the cassation decision, the panel of judges stated that the plaintiff's claim was not accepted. Because the Plaintiff is not satisfied with the results of the cassation decision, then a request for reconsideration is submitted. The panel of judges stated that the cassation decision is canceled and the request for reconsideration is granted because of the occurrence of land maladministration. This research aims to analyze the legal power of land right certificate as evidence based on the Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997 and Government Regulation Number 18 of 2021 as well as to analyze the considerations and court decisions Number: 13/G/2018/PTUN-SRG September 26, 2018, Decision Number: 306/B/2018/PT.TUN.JKT December 20, 2018, Decision Number: 177 K/TUN/2019 April 9, 2019, Decision Number: 10 PK/TUN/2020 January 30, 2020 in terms of Basic Agrarian Principles Jo. Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997 Jis. Job Creation Act Jo. Government Regulation Number 18 of 2021.