Abstract

In this paper, the authors discuss cases that relate to the basis of ownership of rights and authority of land rights called Pipil among the people of Lombok Island. Landowners use Pipil as the real evidence of land rights because it is only landowners who are obliged to pay taxes. After the enactment of Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA), there are fundamental changes in the field of land law and individual rights to land that apply in Indonesia. It mandates that certificate is the only real evidence of ownership of rights to land. However, even though UUPA is in force, there are still many Indonesians, especially in Lombok, who consider Pipil as real evidence of ownership of rights to land. In civil court practice for land cases in the Selong District Court, there are some times that court decisions win the Pipil holder. On the other hand, there are also some times when the Pipil holder is the party who loses the case. It can be found in two land cases decided by the Selong District Court. In the decision of the Selong District Court No. 73/Pdt.G/2008/PN.SEL. on June 18, 2009, the plaintiff who filed Pipil as real evidence was the party who won the case because the real evidence of Pipil was supported by two witnesses who saw that the plaintiff’s controlled and worked on the dispute land. Meanwhile, the decision of the Selong District Court No. 113/Pdt.G/2015/PN.SEL. on June 2, 2016 jo. the decision of Mataram High Court No. 102/PDT/2016/PT.MTR. on October 4, 2016 jo. the decision of Supreme Court No. 399 K/Pdt/2017 on 23 May 2017, the plaintiff who filed Pipil as the real evidence was the party who lost the case. In this case, consideration of the court’s decision prioritized the use of the dispute land in the public interest even though the plaintiff submitted three witnesses who witnessed that the plaintiff’s parents/ grandfather controlled and worked on the dispute land.

Concepts :

Access to Document

SDGs

Citations by Year