Khalda, Ananda Rafifah (2025) Tinjauan Yuridis Atas Terbitnya Putusan No 90/pdt.g/2020/pn Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Tanah Antara Pt. Perkebunan Nusantara V Sei Pagar Dengan Masyarakat Adat Desa Perhentian Raja. Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 211010132.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (4MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

As a country known as an agricultural country, Indonesia has abundant natural wealth, one of which is land. As one of society's needs, land is also a problem in daily life involving ownership and control rights. Case with decision Number. 90/Pdt/G/2020/PN is an example of evidence of the existence of land disputes based on fighting over land ownership rights that occur between communities and companies. The problem formulation in this research consists of two points. First, what is the basis for consideration by the panel of judges in resolving land disputes based on Supreme Court Decision Number. 90/Pdt.G/2020/PN. Second, how is legal certainty for indigenous communities who do not have certificates in disputes with companies that have certificates. The research method used in this research is the normative research method. In this research, the data sources are cases with decision Number. 90/Pdt.G/2020/PN, legal documents such as books, journals, statutory regulations, and works scientific issues related to the discussion of this research. Based on the judge's considerations, the results of this research found that the Certificate of Cultivation Rights Number. 152 issued by the Kampar National Land Agency (BPN) on March 24, 2001 for a land area of 2,856,841 Ha was declared valid, valuable and had legal force. tie. Meanwhile, the Minutes of Agreement resulting from the meeting between the Pantai Raja Village Community and the Directors of PT. Perkebunan Nusantara V on April 6 1999 is not considered as a basis for land rights owned by indigenous peoples or other parties. Therefore, legal certainty for Indigenous Peoples who do not have certificates is considered weak in the eyes of the law against companies that have certificates, unless there are other factors from indigenous peoples that can strengthen their land rights. Therefore, based on the information above, the land ownership contested by the indigenous community and the company was won by the plaintiff (company) before the court.

Actions (login required)

View Item