Tanggung Jawab Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah (Ppat) Atas Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Menerbitkan Akta Jual Beli Tanpa Sepengetahuan Penghadap (Penjual) Studi Putusan Nomor 3507k/Pdt/2023

Abstract

Abstract The Liability Of The Land Deed Official (Ppat) For Unlawful Conduct In Issuing A Deed Of Sale And Purchase Without The Knowledge Of The Appearer (Seller): A Study Of Supreme Court Decision Number 3507k/Pdt/2023 The Deed Of Sale And Purchase (Ajb) Made By A Land Deed Official (Ppat) Is Sometimes Declared Invalid In A Lawsuit. The Deed Can Be Annulled Through Court Proceedings Based On Legally Recognized Grounds. Its Invalidity Must Be Proven From Formal, Material, And External Aspects. This Thesis Addresses The Legal Force Of A Sale And Purchase Deed Issued Unlawfully By A Ppat, The Liability Of The Ppat For Issuing The Deed Without The Knowledge Of The Appearer (Seller), And The Legal Considerations And Ruling Of The Panel Of Judges Regarding The Unlawful Act Committed By The Ppat In Issuing The Deed, As Seen In Supreme Court Decision Number 3507k/Pdt/2023. This Research Employs Normative Juridical Methods With A Descriptive-Analytical Approach. Data Were Collected Through Literature Review And Document Study. The Data Were Qualitatively Analyzed, And Conclusions Were Drawn Deductively. A Deed Of Sale And Purchase Issued Unlawfully By A Ppat Loses Its Validity As An Authentic Deed As Stipulated In Article 1868 Of The Indonesian Civil Code. Such Unlawful Actions By A Ppat May Result In Legal Consequences In The Form Of Civil Liability (Under Article 1365 Of The Civil Code), Administrative Sanctions (From The Supervisory Authority), And Criminal Liability If Intentional Misconduct Or Criminal Elements Are Involved. A Ppat Issuing A Sale And Purchase Deed Without The Seller’s Knowledge May Face Administrative Sanctions Such As A Warning Or Temporary Suspension For Committing A Minor Violation Of Ppat Duties. If Proven To Have Committed Forgery Or Falsification Of Signatures, The Ppat May Be Dishonorably Discharged. Civilly, The Ppat May Be Sued Under Article 1365 Of The Civil Code By The Injured Party. In Decision Number 3507k/Pdt/2023, The Panel Of Judges Found That The Ajb Issued By The Defendant I, Acting As Notary/Ppat, Was Legally Defective Due To Several Violations: The Seller (Plaintiff) Had Not Paid Taxes; The Ppat Who Issued The Ajb Was Not Notarized In Batu City; The Signing Did Not Take Place At The Ppat Office; And The Plaintiff Was Misled Into Signing Documents By The Ppat’s Staff. Thus, The Ajb Is Clearly And Evidently Defective.