PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA TANAH TIAKUR IBUKOTA KABUPATEN MALUKU BARAT DAYA PROVINSI MALUKU

STUDI KASUS: PUTUSAN MAHKAMA AGUNG NOMOR 1835 K/PDT/2019

Authors

  • Samuel Porsiana Lewier Universitas Dr. Soetomo
  • M. Syahrul Borman Universitas Dr. Soetomo
  • Subekti Subekti Universitas Dr. Soetomo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53363/bureau.v4i1.383

Keywords:

Law Enforcement; Land Disputes ; Verstek Verdict, Penegakan Hukum; Sengketa Tanah ; Putusan Verstek

Abstract

Soil, as one of the vital aspects for human survival, has a very important role. The presence of land provides great potential in producing natural resources that provide significant benefits to many people. However, the importance of land also means that the amount is limited, and therefore, there needs to be regulation from the government. Disputes over land ownership and use often arise in communities, and this problem is tapering from year to year, spreading in almost all parts of Indonesia, including both urban and rural areas. One example that illustrates this condition can be found in the community of Tiakur, the capital of Southwest Maluku Regency, Maluku Province, as exemplified in Supreme Court Decision Number 1835 K / Pdt / 2019. The researcher formulates questions based on this background: (1) What is the judge's consideration for the settlement of the land dispute in Tiakur, the capital of Southwest Maluku Regency, Maluku Province? (2) How is the settlement of the land dispute in Tiakur, the capital of Southwest Maluku Regency, Maluku Province? The method used is Normative research with a statutory approach and a case approach, using descriptive analysis techniques, the results of the study show, that the judex facti decision / Ambon High Court in this case is not contrary to the law and / or the law, then the cassation application submitted by Cassation Applicant Frits Hosea Gaspar Pooroe, must be rejected. 2. Tiakur Land The capital of Southwest Maluku Regency of Maluku Province is a former Toinaman State lordship covering an area of ± 4000 Ha (Hecto Are), located in West Moa, Moa District, Southwest Maluku Regency, which has been granted/released by the defendants to the Southwest Maluku Regency Government

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Afriani, Bela. 2018. “Penyelesaian sengketa tumpang tindih hak antara sertipikat hak milik (SHM) dengan surat keterangan tanah (SKT) di kota Pangkalpinang.”

Ali, Zainuddin. 2021. Metode penelitian hukum. Sinar Grafika.

Amriani, Nurnaningsih. 2012. “Mediasi: Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa Perdata di Pengadilan.”

Arba, H. M. 2019. “Hukum Agraria Indonesia, Jakarta, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.” Cet. Ke. IV.

Arba, Muhammad. 2021. Hukum Agraria Indonesia. Sinar Grafika.

Azam, Syaiful. 2003. “Eksistensi Hukum Tanah Dalam Mewujudkan Tertib Hukum Agraria.”

Dewanto, Bisma Aryo. 2021. “Analisis Hukum Penyelesaian Sengketa Tanah Ulayat Antara PT. SDIC Papua Cement Indonesia dengan Masyarakat Marga Mansim (Studi Kasus di Maruni Kabupaten Manokwari).”

Gustio, Andrian. 2022. “Penyelesaian Sengketa Pemberian Hak Milik Di Atas Tanah Ulayat Di Kabupaten Dharmasraya.”

Harahap, M. Yahya. 2017. Hukum acara perdata: tentang gugatan, persidangan, penyitaan, pembuktian, dan putusan pengadilan. Sinar Grafika.

Tahali, Ahmad. 2018. “Hukum Adat Di Nusantara Indonesia.” Jurisprudentie: Jurusan Ilmu Hukum Fakultas Syariah Dan Hukum 5(1):27–46.

Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1960 tentang Peraturan Dasar Pokok-Pokok Agraria (UUPA)

KUHPerdata (Burgerlijk Wetbook)

Undang-undang No.5 Tahun 1960 Tentang Pokok-Pokok Agraria.

Peraturan Pemerintah No.24 Tahun 1997 Tentang Pendaftaran Tanah.

Undang-Undang No. 14 Tahun 1985, Perubahan kedua Undang

Undang No 3 Tahun 2009 Tentang Mahkama Agung.

Downloads

Published

2024-04-25

How to Cite

Lewier, S. P. ., Borman, M. S. ., & Subekti, S. (2024). PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA TANAH TIAKUR IBUKOTA KABUPATEN MALUKU BARAT DAYA PROVINSI MALUKU: STUDI KASUS: PUTUSAN MAHKAMA AGUNG NOMOR 1835 K/PDT/2019. Bureaucracy Journal : Indonesia Journal of Law and Social-Political Governance, 4(1), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.53363/bureau.v4i1.383