This research aims the legal position of former owner(s) of a colonial rights which dominated or inhabited by other parties and how legal remedies can be made by them. Studying the case: the author discussed with the plaintiffs and he thought that who dominates the building physically, they are more entitled to take control of the building, corresponding with article 5 Presidential Decree number 5 of 1979. They also pay all of the tax of the building, therefore they think that they have proof of ownership of the building. The plaintiff feel disappointed because of things done by defendant, not in accordance with prevailing norm, the plaintiff state that if the defendant want to sell the house, they must sell it to the plaintiff’s client first. Based on that, the plaintiff finally sue the defendant. According to the research, it can be concluded that the legal status of the “colonial rights of land“ which is occupied or dominated by others will be prioritized to who dominates the building physically and physically authorized, rather than the heirs of the former owner of colonial rights of land who do not possess physically. The evidence of tax repayment is just their obligations and it does not prove that they are the owner of the building. The case is won by the defendant (based on judges consideration), the plaintiffs might sue the defendant depends on new evidence.