Basic Legality and Legal Position of SKT

Oct 13, 2025 by talynt.org 120 views

Legal Analysis of Land Control Disputes Related to Defects in Land Registration: Decision Study Number 7/G/2016/PTUN-MDN

Introduction

Land ownership disputes often arise due to defects in the land registration process. One example of such a case is the decision of the Supreme Court Number 1816K/PDT/2019, which discusses disputes related to Land Rights Certificates (SKT) issued by the Head of the Medan Agrarian Office in 1955. This article will analyze the law related to the dispute, discussing the basis of the legality and validity, as well as the legal implications.

The Main Problem: Validity of SKT

The main problem in this case is regarding the validity of the SKT, which is the object of dispute. The question that arises is the basis of the legality and validity of the SKT, how the SKT's legal position was issued by the Head of the Medan Agrarian Office in 1955, and what is the legal consequence of the SKT issuance. The validity of the SKT is crucial in determining the land ownership status, and any defects in the registration process can lead to disputes and legal complications.

Basic Legality and Legal Position of SKT

The determination of land ownership status is regulated in Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration. This rule introduces the concept of "land registration for the first time" that can be done through systematic or sporadic. In the SKT case issued before the area is included in the systematic land registration system, land registration is carried out sporadically. SKT issued through this mechanism remains valid as proof of ownership. The legal position of the SKT as proof of land ownership is regulated in Article 7 paragraph (2) and Article 39 of Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997. SKT can be categorized as a notary deed, which is a requirement to submit an application for land rights.

SKT's Validity in Historical Perspective

The validity and validity of the SKT cannot be separated from the political conditions of land law in Indonesia. The land registration system in Indonesia can be divided into two eras: before and after the enactment of the Agrarian Act (UUPA). Before the enactment of the LoGA, the SKT signed or known by the authorized official at that time was considered valid. However, after the enactment of the LoGA, proof of land ownership is determined by the certificate. This historical perspective is essential in understanding the basis of the legality and validity of the SKT.

Legal Consequences for the Disputed SKT

In the case of the Supreme Court's decision number 1816K/PDT/2019, the judge rejected the SKT issued by the Head of the Medan Agrarian Office because the SKT did not have a strong legal basis. The judge believes that the SKT does not show full ownership, but only the right to use the land. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that land registration is carried out accurately and in accordance with the law.

Conclusion

The case of land ownership dispute involving SKT shows the importance of implementing an orderly and accurate land registration system. Although the SKT has a historical value and has been recognized as proof of ownership, the court can assess its validity based on the current laws and regulations and the evidence submitted in the trial. This kind of land ownership dispute can be avoided by increasing public awareness of the importance of the correct and complete land registration process. This will help minimize the potential of disputes in the future and create legal certainty in terms of land ownership.

Recommendations

To avoid similar disputes in the future, the following recommendations can be made:

Increase public awareness: Public awareness of the importance of the correct and complete land registration process is crucial in preventing disputes.
Implement an orderly land registration system: An orderly land registration system is essential in ensuring that land ownership is accurately recorded and that disputes are minimized.
Ensure that land registration is carried out accurately: Land registration must be carried out accurately and in accordance with the law to prevent disputes.
Provide legal certainty: Providing legal certainty in terms of land ownership is essential in preventing disputes and ensuring that land ownership is accurately recorded.

Future Research Directions

Future research directions can include:

Analyzing the impact of land registration defects on land ownership disputes: Analyzing the impact of land registration defects on land ownership disputes can provide valuable insights into the causes of disputes and how they can be prevented.
Examining the effectiveness of land registration systems: Examining the effectiveness of land registration systems can provide valuable insights into how land registration can be improved to prevent disputes.
Investigating the role of public awareness in preventing land ownership disputes: Investigating the role of public awareness in preventing land ownership disputes can provide valuable insights into how public awareness can be increased to prevent disputes.

Limitations of the Study

The study has several limitations, including:

Limited scope: The study only analyzed one case of land ownership dispute involving SKT.
Limited data: The study only used data from the Supreme Court's decision number 1816K/PDT/2019.
Limited generalizability: The study's findings may not be generalizable to other cases of land ownership disputes involving SKT.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the case of land ownership dispute involving SKT highlights the importance of implementing an orderly and accurate land registration system. Although the SKT has a historical value and has been recognized as proof of ownership, the court can assess its validity based on the current laws and regulations and the evidence submitted in the trial. This kind of land ownership dispute can be avoided by increasing public awareness of the importance of the correct and complete land registration process. This will help minimize the potential of disputes in the future and create legal certainty in terms of land ownership.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Land Control Disputes Related to Defects in Land Registration

Q: What is the main problem in the case of land ownership dispute involving SKT?

A: The main problem in this case is regarding the validity of the SKT, which is the object of dispute. The question that arises is the basis of the legality and validity of the SKT, how the SKT's legal position was issued by the Head of the Medan Agrarian Office in 1955, and what is the legal consequence of the SKT issuance.

Q: What is the significance of the SKT in land ownership disputes?

A: The SKT is a crucial document in land ownership disputes, as it serves as proof of ownership. However, the validity of the SKT can be disputed, leading to land ownership disputes.

Q: What is the legal position of the SKT as proof of land ownership?

A: The legal position of the SKT as proof of land ownership is regulated in Article 7 paragraph (2) and Article 39 of Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997. SKT can be categorized as a notary deed, which is a requirement to submit an application for land rights.

Q: What is the historical perspective of the SKT's validity?

A: The validity and validity of the SKT cannot be separated from the political conditions of land law in Indonesia. The land registration system in Indonesia can be divided into two eras: before and after the enactment of the Agrarian Act (UUPA). Before the enactment of the LoGA, the SKT signed or known by the authorized official at that time was considered valid. However, after the enactment of the LoGA, proof of land ownership is determined by the certificate.

Q: What are the legal consequences for the disputed SKT?

A: In the case of the Supreme Court's decision number 1816K/PDT/2019, the judge rejected the SKT issued by the Head of the Medan Agrarian Office because the SKT did not have a strong legal basis. The judge believes that the SKT does not show full ownership, but only the right to use the land.

Q: How can land ownership disputes be prevented?

A: Land ownership disputes can be prevented by increasing public awareness of the importance of the correct and complete land registration process. This will help minimize the potential of disputes in the future and create legal certainty in terms of land ownership.

Q: What are the recommendations for preventing land ownership disputes?

A: The following recommendations can be made to prevent land ownership disputes:

Increase public awareness: Public awareness of the importance of the correct and complete land registration process is crucial in preventing disputes.
Implement an orderly land registration system: An orderly land registration system is essential in ensuring that land ownership is accurately recorded and that disputes are minimized.
Ensure that land registration is carried out accurately: Land registration must be carried out accurately and in accordance with the law to prevent disputes.
Provide legal certainty: Providing legal certainty in terms of land ownership is essential in preventing disputes and ensuring that land ownership is accurately recorded.

Q: What are the future research directions for land ownership disputes?

A: Future research directions can include:

Analyzing the impact of land registration defects on land ownership disputes: Analyzing the impact of land registration defects on land ownership disputes can provide valuable insights into the causes of disputes and how they can be prevented.
Examining the effectiveness of land registration systems: Examining the effectiveness of land registration systems can provide valuable insights into how land registration can be improved to prevent disputes.
Investigating the role of public awareness in preventing land ownership disputes: Investigating the role of public awareness in preventing land ownership disputes can provide valuable insights into how public awareness can be increased to prevent disputes.

Q: What are the limitations of the study?

A: The study has several limitations, including:

Limited scope: The study only analyzed one case of land ownership dispute involving SKT.
Limited data: The study only used data from the Supreme Court's decision number 1816K/PDT/2019.
Limited generalizability: The study's findings may not be generalizable to other cases of land ownership disputes involving SKT.