Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Atas Kegiatan Penggalian Pasir dan Batu di Aliran Sungai yang Mengakibatkan Tanah Menjadi Erosi (Analisis Putusan Nomor 10/Pdt.G/2020/PN.Lbs)

Abstract

Sand and stone excavation activities in river flows have long been a problem because they often have a negative impact on the surrounding environment. This excavation activity often results in landslides and erosion on the riverbanks when the river water overflows during the rainy season. The aim of the research in this thesis is to find out the determination of illegal acts regarding sand and stone excavation activities in river flows which result in soil erosion based on Decision Number 10/Pdt.G/2020/PN.Lbs, to find out the form of compensation for excavation activities. sand and stones in river flows which cause soil erosion based on Decision Number 10/Pdt.G/2020/PN.Lbs, as well as to find out the legal analysis of the judge's considerations in adjudicating the case Decision Number 10/Pdt.G/2020/PN.Lbs ? The method used in writing this thesis is a normative juridical research method, namely a method that refers to legal norms which is carried out by means of literature study in order to obtain secondary data in the form of primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials related to the problems studied, this research has descriptive properties. Based on the analysis of Decision Number 10/Pdt.G/2020/PN Lbs, the Panel of Judges has decided that the Defendant (CV Dio Putra Karya) has committed an unlawful act (onrechtmatige daad) for the activity of digging sand and stone in the river which resulted in landslides. and the washing away of the Plaintiff's parents' palm oil plantations, because the Defendant did not carry out environmental management and monitoring obligations in accordance with the environmental documents he owned, even though he had a mining business permit, and as a form of compensation, the Panel of Judges sentenced the Defendant to carry out river normalization by filling the dam. the edge of the river in the part that borders the land belonging to the Plaintiff's parents, while the claim for compensation for material and immaterial losses was rejected because the Plaintiff could not prove in detail the extent of the loss.