| dc.description.abstract | The land dispute initially between CK and the Bitung City Government in the District Court was won by CK. but after the final and binding court decision, the Bitung City Government filed for Judicial Review and brought NR as a party who had never appeared during the trial in the District Court. Unfortunately, CK, as a well- intentioned buyer, had to lose in the Judicial Review, and the case was won by the Bitung City Government. In such a situation, issues regarding the ownership of the land may arise. The urgency of a solution related to legal protection for well- intentioned buyers, namely CK as the holder of ownership rights to the disputed land, is essential since CK was unaware that there was another owner who had relinquished their rights to the land to the Bitung City Government. Additionally, this study will also examine the dynamics of the land rights case as in Decision Number 272/Pd.G/2019/PN.Bit in conjunction with the Supreme Court Decision No.
1054PK/Pd/2020.
The research method used is normative juridical, which includes research on the level of legal synchronization, focusing on how existing written positive laws are in harmony with each other. Legal research also involves an in-depth examination of legal facts to be used in addressing the issues.
The research findings show that the evidentiary strength of land rights without a certificate as evidence in court against lawsuits on land objects that have been issued certificates by authorized officials. The Certificate of Land Use Rights Number 2 of 2003 in the name of the Bitung City Government was issued on land belonging to others because the seller (MR) conducted two sales transactions with different buyers (CK and NR) for the same land object. The case contested the right to ascertain the legitimate land rights holder through a lawsuit for wrongful acts in the District Court. and the winning party could file for the cancellation of the certificate to the National Land Agency (BPN) or the State Administrative Court (PTUN). The analysis of the Judge's considerations in Decision Number 272/Pdt G/2019/PN.Bit in conjunction with Supreme Court Decision No. 1054PK/Pdt/2020 reveals that the plaintiffs at the first-level district court defeated the Bitung city government, but after the final and binding decision (inkracht van gewijde) without appeal and cassation, the Bitung City Government, following the final and binding decision of the first-level district court, filed for Judicial Review based on the existence of novum (new evidence) in the form of a Statement of Release of Land Use Rights dated October 30, 2002, which won the Bitung City Government as the holder of land use rights who obtained the release of land rights from NR. Therefore, this undermines the aspect of justice due to the lack of legal protection for CK as a well-intentioned buyer. There is a need for legal protection for well-intentioned buyers of the land in question, where there is another buyer, NR. who has relinquished the rights to the land to the Bitung City Government, thus requiring enhanced legal protection for well-intentioned buyers like CK | en_US |
