Analisis Yuridis Pembatalan Sertipikat Hak Milik No. 212/Pasar Pangururan Yang Diterbitkan Oleh Kantor Pertanahan Kabupaten Samosir Ditinjau Berdasarkan Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Medan No. 35/G/2020/Ptun-Mdn Yang Telah Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap (Inkracht Van Gewijsde)

Abstract

Certificates serve as valid proof of ownership under Indonesian law with the primary objective of providing legal certainty. However, why is it that a land certificate must sometimes be annulled? Such situations may lead to ambiguity in legal implementation and result in a lack of legal certainty and protection for certificate holders. This study raises several legal issues: How is the application of the negative publication system with a positive tendency in land registration able to ensure legal certainty over the status o f land certificates issued by the Land Office? How should the legal reasoning of judges in annulling Certificate of Ownership No. 212/Pasar Pangururan through Decision No. 35/G/2020/PTUN-MDN be analyzed in relation to the value of justice? What are the legal responsibilities of the Head of the Land Office of Samosir Regency in issuing Certificate of Ownership No. 212/Pasar Pangururan to the aggrieved party? This study is a normative juridical research employing a descriptive-analytical approach. The method relies on legal norms obtained through library research to gather secondary data in the form of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Data collection techniques include literature review of relevant regulations and legal sources, complemented by field research through interviews with officials from Samosir Land Office and judges the Medan Administrative Court. The data were analyzed using a qualitative method. The findings indicate that the implementation of the negative publication system with a positive tendency in land registration has not yet maximally provided legal certainty regarding the status of ownership certificates issued by the Land Office, as such certificates can still be subject to legal challenge. The judges' legal considerations in Decision No. 35/G/2020/PTUN-MDN were based on the fact that the defendant, as an administrative official, failed to act carefully in reviewing the application for land rights registration submitted by the Intervening Defendant II. Legal liability may be imposed on the Head of the Land Office for administrative errors in the issuance of the certificate of ownership, including administrative, civil, and even criminal responsibility. Thus, the Head of the Land Office of Samosir Regency bears legal responsibility for the issuance of Certificate of Ownership No. 212/Pasar Pangururan if it causes losses to other parties. Keywords: Cancellation, Certificate, Administrative Court Decision