STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR 26/PDT.G/2022/PN NANGA BULIK TENTANG GUGATAN KEPEMILIKAN HAK ATAS TANAH

Tambunan, Ade Tamarin (2025) STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR 26/PDT.G/2022/PN NANGA BULIK TENTANG GUGATAN KEPEMILIKAN HAK ATAS TANAH. S1 thesis, UNIVERSITAS JAMBI.

	Text ABSTRAK SKRIPSI.pdf Download (176kB)
	Text BAB I SKRIPSI.pdf Download (422kB)
	Text BAB II SKRIPSI.pdf Download (508kB)
	Text BAB III SKRIPSI.pdf Download (424kB)
	Text BAB IV SKRIPSI.pdf Download (191kB)
	Text DAFTAR PUSTAKA SKRIPSI.pdf Download (273kB)
	Text LEMBAR PENGESAHAN ADE.pdf Download (834kB)
	Text ADE TAMARIN TAMBUNAN B1A121315.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (1MB)

Abstract

This paper aims to find out and analyze the basis of the judge's consideration and its implications for legal certainty in Decision Number 26/Pdt.G/2022/PN NGB regarding land ownership disputes that have not been reversed. The issues discussed include: (1) What is the basis for the judge's consideration in determining the status of land ownership that has not been reversed? (2) What is the legal certainty if the name has not been changed for the land certificate. The research method used is normative juridical by collecting primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results of the study explain that the basis of the judge's consideration has a juridical weakness because it ignores Articles 1320 and 1472 of the Civil Code which require that the object of the agreement must belong to the seller. The land sold is still in the name of Defendant II, so the sale and purchase should be null and void. In addition, Article 37 of Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 which requires a Deed of Sale and Purchase from PPAT and Article 64 of Government Regulation No. 18 of 2021 which gives 5 years for the aggrieved party to file an objection are also not considered. This decision provides temporary legal certainty for the Plaintiff because it has controlled the land and paid taxes, but still leaves the potential for new disputes if the heirs of Defendant II raise objections. In conclusion, although this decision provides temporary legal protection for the Plaintiff, the legal certainty is not fully guaranteed because there are still legal loopholes that can be used by other parties to sue. Therefore, further steps are needed such as an application for execution to the court and the process of changing the name of the certificate involving PPAT to ensure stronger legal certainty. Keywords: Land Ownership, Judge's Decision, Legal Certainty

Type:	Thesis (S1)
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Land Ownership, Judge's Decision, Legal Certainty
Subjects:	L Education > L Education (General)
Divisions:	Fakultas Hukum > Ilmu Hukum
Depositing User:	ADE TAMARIN TAMBUNAN
Date Deposited:	16 Apr 2025 06:44
Last Modified:	16 Apr 2025 06:44
URI:	https://repository.unja.ac.id/id/eprint/77365

Actions (login required)

View Item