Perbuatan Melawan Hukum atas Pengakuan Kepemilikan Tanah Oleh Pihak yang Tidak Berhak (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 691 K/Pdt/2025)

Abstract

Land ownership disputes often hinder the compensation payment process in land acquisition for public interest. This research is motivated by a dispute case between Paimin as the owner of Certificate of Ownership (SHM) and PT Sinar Waluyo which claimed ownership based on a Sales and Purchase Binding Agreement Deed and Power of Attorney to Sell over 9 plots of land in Magelang City affected by the Yogyakarta-Bawen Toll Road project. The purpose of this research is to determine the legal protection of land ownership rights when the certificate is controlled by another party, to analyze the legal consequences of unlawful acts regarding land ownership claims by unauthorized parties, and to analyze the judge's considerations in Supreme Court Decision Number 691 K/Pdt/2025. The research method used is normative juridical with descriptive research characteristics, using secondary data consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials collected through library research and analyzed qualitatively. The research results show that legal protection for landowners whose certificates are controlled by other parties remains guaranteed through civil lawsuits to request the return of certificates and determination of ownership rights, because ownership is not lost merely because the certificate is controlled by others and can be proven through supporting documents and data from the National Land Agency. Parties who claim to be landowners when they are not entitled can be subject to sanctions based on Article 1365 of the Civil Code with legal consequences in the form of obligations to return the land, pay compensation, and potentially enter the criminal realm of document forgery, where all legal actions taken are declared invalid and null and void. The Supreme Court's considerations in Decision Number 691 K/Pdt/2025 show substantial weaknesses despite rejecting PT Sinar Waluyo's cassation, because it did not explicitly annul the legally defective Sales and Purchase Binding Agreement Deed, did not analyze the prohibition of absolute power of attorney in SEMA Number 4 of 2016, did not consider the invalidity of the Rights Waiver Deed, did not impose comprehensive sanctions in the form of physical handover and immaterial compensation, and ignored the criminal dimension regarding indications of document forgery.