Kepastian Hukum Penguasaan Tanah oleh Pemerintah Daerah yang Berasal dari Peminjaman dalam Sengketa dengan Ahli Waris (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3580 K/Pdt/2023)

Abstract

Land ownership disputes between local governments and heirs become increasingly complex when involving land that originally came from a loan arrangement. The case of Lapangan Akso Dano in Supreme Court Decision No. 3580 K/Pd/2023 reflects legal issues in which 19 heirs sued the Muaro Jambi Regency Government over land claimed as inheritance from Hamid bin Atok, which had been loaned to Pasirah Sidik Rapin in 1970. The research problems include: first, the legal certainty of land possession status by the local government; second, the legal construction for protecting regional assets originating from loaned land that has been physically possessed for an extended period; and third, the legal analysis of the judges' considerations in Supreme Court Decision No. 3580 K/Pd/2023 regarding land ownership disputes involving loaned land to the local government. This research employs a normative juridical method with a case approach to Supreme Court Decision No. 3580 K/Pdt/2023. Primary data consist of court decisions and statutory regulations, analyzed using Gustav Radbruch's theory of legal certainty, Philipus M. Hadjon's theory of legal protection, and John Rawls' theory of justice. Data analysis was conducted qualitatively. The study reveals that legal certainty over land possession by local government is comprehensively regulated through a legal hierarchy from the 1945 Constitution to Government Regulation No. 24/1997, reinforced by customary law recognition of long-term physical possession. Second, the legal construction for protecting regional assets can be established through a comprehensive approach that combines preventive and repressive protection by utilizing historical documentation of possession and the social function of land in accordance with Article 6 of the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA). Third, the Supreme Court's legal considerations applied an appropriate burden of proof principle by recognizing the local government's physical possession of the land since 1970 for public interest, reflecting a balance between the protection of individual rights and the broader public interest, though ideally it could be complemented with moral compensation considerations for the family of the original landowner.