ANALISIS PUTUSAN MA NOMOR 642 K/TUN/2018 TERKAIT SENGKETA PENGUASAAN HAK ATAS TANAH BERDASARKAN OCCUPATIE VERGUNNING

Abstract

The dispute concerns land claimed by the heirs of Hamzah Hanafi based on an Occupatie Vergunning issued in 1962, which they argued constituted a valid historical entitlement. The land was later registered under a Building Use Right Certificate (SHGB) in the name of PT. Pelayaran Bahtera Adhiguna. The Plaintiffs claimed that demolition and land clearance by the South Jakarta City Administration amounted to an unlawful act because it ignored their prior rights. The Defendants argued that the Occupatie Vergunning was only a temporary colonial permit with no legal force under the current Indonesian land law system. The Administrative Court rejected the claim at all levels: Jakarta Administrative Court Decision No. 193/G/2017/PTUN-JKT, affirmed by Decision No. 148/B/2018/PT.TUN.JKT, and upheld by Supreme Court Decision No. 642 K/TUN/2018. The courts held that the SHGB constituted valid legal title, while the Occupatie Vergunning could not serve as proof of ownership without formal conversion.Using a normative legal research method, this study finds that judges prioritized legal certainty and formal land registration in accordance with the Basic Agrarian Law, Government Regulation No. 24/1997, and Ministerial Regulation No. 7/1963. The ruling resulted in the loss of the Plaintiffs’ claim and reinforced the legitimacy of certified land rights and government actions.

Kata kunci: Occupatie Vergunning, Dispute, Legal Certainty.