Legal Analysis Of The Procedure For Issuing Building Use Rights Certificates On The Based On A Sale Purchase Deed (Study Of Lubuk Pakam District Court Decision Number 227/Pdt.G/2020/PN LBP)

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Nov 2, 2026
https://doi.org/10.34012/jihp.v9i2.8837
Download
PDF
Statistic
Vol. 9 No. 2 (2026): JURNAL ILMU HUKUM PRIMA

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Yolanda Lumban Gaol
Fakultas Hukum, Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan
Samuel F. B. Situmorang
Fakultas Hukum, Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan

Abstract

Building Use Rights (HGB) is one of the land rights in Indonesian land law that is most often used for business purposes, both property development and the provision of cemetery areas. HGB is usually obtained through a sale and purchase set out in a Sale and Purchase Deed (AJB) before a Land Deed Making Official (PPAT). This article departs from the case in the Lubuk Pakam District Court Decision Number 227/Pdt.G/2020/PN Lbp, when 63 (sixty-three) Building Use Rights Certificates (SHGB) were issued simultaneously based on 63 Sale and Purchase Deeds dated December 30, 2015, and then challenged by parties who claimed to have controlled the land for generations based on Land Certificates (SKT). ​​There are two questions answered: first, what stages and legal requirements must be met for the SHGB issued from the AJB to be valid under Indonesian land law; second, how the legal assessment of the issuance of the 63 certificates appears in the considerations of the Lubuk Pakam District Court. Using a normative juridical method through a statutory approach and a case approach, this article shows that the validity of the SHGB is supported by two layers of conditions, namely the validity of the sale and purchase transaction itself (clear, cash, and not in dispute) and hierarchical administrative stages, either through registration of the transfer of rights or an application for new rights preceded by an examination by the Land Inspection Committee. In the case discussed, the Panel of Judges declared the 63 AJB and SHGB valid by adhering to the doctrine of formal truth, because most of the Defendants' statements were made after the lawsuit was registered and were never authenticated by a notary. However, if the description of the legal considerations is examined further, the Panel of Judges' assessment of the Defendants' ten witnesses is not comprehensive: the statements of two Village Heads who consistently indicate inconsistencies in the location of the certificate object are not considered, and the benchmarks usually used to assess written evidence are also applied to witness statements under oath, even though civil procedure law views both as different types of evidence. This article also emphasizes the need for the court to implement SEMA Number 7 of 2012 (State Administrative Chamber Formulation) to separate the civil disputes from the parts that fall under the authority of the State Administrative Court.


 

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Lumban Gaol, Y., & F. B. Situmorang, S. (2026). Legal Analysis Of The Procedure For Issuing Building Use Rights Certificates On The Based On A Sale Purchase Deed (Study Of Lubuk Pakam District Court Decision Number 227/Pdt.G/2020/PN LBP). Ilmu Hukum Prima (IHP), 9(2). https://doi.org/10.34012/jihp.v9i2.8837

References

  1. Alivian, B., & Pandamdari, E. (2020). Legal Certainty for Land Certificate Cancellation Applications That Have Exceeded the Time Limit (Study of Supreme Court Decision Number 115 PK/Pdt/2018). Adigama Law Journal, 3(1), 621–644.https://doi.org/10.24912/adigama.v3i1.8919
  2. Darnus, ABB, Nawi, S., & Poernomo, SL (2022). Analysis of Legal Protection for Disputed Land Ownership Certificate Holders. Journal of Lex Generalis (JLG), 3(8), 1282–1293.
  3. Dirga, I N. (2017). Legal Force of Land Title Certificates Based on the Principle of Good Faith. Jatiswara, 32(2).https://doi.org/10.29303/jtsw.v32i2.121
  4. Djaja, B., & Oktaviani, S. (2023). A Land Publication System that Guarantees Legal Certainty of Land Title Certificates. Muara Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts, 7(2), 523–533.https://doi.org/10.24912/jmishumsen.v7i2.9949.2023
  5. Fuady, Munir. Unlawful Acts: A Contemporary Approach. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 2005.
  6. Gayatri, NMS, Seputra, IPG, & Suryani, LP (2021). Cancellation of Land Ownership Certificates Due to Administrative Defects. Journal of Legal Analogy, 3(1), 79–83.https://doi.org/10.22225/ah.3.1.2021.79-8
  7. Harahap, M. Yahya. Civil Procedure: Lawsuits, Trials, Confiscations, Evidence, and Court Decisions. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2015.
  8. Harsono, Boedi. Indonesian Agrarian Law: History of the Formation of the Basic Agrarian Law, Its Contents, and Implementation. Revised Edition, 12th ed. Jakarta: Djambatan, 2008.
  9. Herziene Inlandsch Reglement (HIR).
  10. Jamil, A., Tira, A., & Abdurrifai. (2024). A Detailed Legal Analysis of Legal Force in Proving Land Ownership Rights. Clavia: Journal of Law, 22(3).https://doi.org/10.56326/clavia.v22i3.5444
  11. The Legal Status and Power of Witness Testimony. (2025). Bureaucracy Journal: Indonesia Journal of Law and Social-Political Governance, 5(2).
  12. Civil Code.
  13. Criminal Code.
  14. Lontoh, MGH (2018). Legal Study of the Land Ownership Certificate Cancellation Process at the State Administrative Court. Lex Administratum, 6(3), 28–36.
  15. Manthovani, R., & Istiqomah, I. (2017). Land Registration in Indonesia. Journal of Master of Law, 2(2), 23–28.
  16. Meiranda, A., Syamsunasir, S., Sukendro, A., & Widodo, P. (2023). Legal Efforts to Resolve Customary Land Disputes in Kampar Regency to Maintain National Security. Journal of Legal Analysis, 6(1).
  17. Mertokusumo, Sudikno. Indonesian Civil Procedure Law. Yogyakarta: Liberty, 2006.
  18. Muslim, D., & Arsin, FX (2023). Application of the Clear and Cash Principle in the Sale and Purchase of Land Rights that are to be Unilaterally Cancelled. Jurnal Supremasi, 13(2), 60–69.https://doi.org/10.35457/supremasi.v13i2.2193
  19. Nober, Pasapan, P., & Lumentut, L. (2021). Application of the Principle of Rechtsverwerking in Acquiring Land Rights According to Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration. Paulus Legal Research, 1(1), 1–8.
  20. Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/Head of the National Land Agency Number 18 of 2021 concerning Procedures for Determining Management Rights and Land Rights.
  21. Regulation of the Minister of State for Agrarian Affairs/Head of the National Land Agency Number 9 of 1999 concerning Procedures for Granting and Cancelling Rights to State Land and Management Rights (has been revoked by Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/Head of the National Land Agency Number 18 of 2021).
  22. Government Regulation Number 9 of 1987 concerning the Provision and Use of Land for Cemetery Purposes.
  23. Government Regulation Number 18 of 2021 concerning Management Rights, Land Rights, Apartment Units, and Land Registration.
  24. Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration.
  25. Government Regulation Number 40 of 1996 concerning Cultivation Rights, Building Rights, and Land Use Rights (has been revoked by Government Regulation Number 18 of 2021).
  26. Prasetyo, MA (2023). The Urgency of PPAT in the Land and Building Sale and Purchase Process in a Legal Review. Maliyah: Journal of Islamic Business Law, 13(2), 266–284.https://doi.org/10.15642/maliyah.2023.13.2.266-284
  27. Putra, RD, & Arsyad, H. (2022). Judges' Assessment of Witness Evidence in Civil Disputes. Jurnal Rechts Vinding, 11(3), 210–222.
  28. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4060 K/Pdt/2022, dated November 23, 2022.
  29. Lubuk Pakam District Court Decision Number 227/Pdt.G/2020/PN Lbp., dated September 15, 2021.
  30. Medan High Court Decision Number 500/Pdt/2021/PT Mdn., dated December 21, 2021.
  31. Salam, S. (2023). Physical Control of Land as Evidence of Customary Land Ownership in Court. Crepido Journal, 5(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.14710/crepido.5.1.1-14
  32. Santoso, Urip. Agrarian Law: A Comprehensive Study. Jakarta: Kencana, 2015.
  33. Santoso, Urip. Registration and Transfer of Land Rights. Jakarta: Kencana, 2010.
  34. Subekti, R. Law of Evidence. Jakarta: Pradnya Paramita, 1995.
  35. Sumardjono, Maria SW Land Policy: Between Regulation and Implementation. Jakarta: Kompas, 2001.
  36. Sumardjono, Maria SW. Land in the Perspective of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Jakarta: Kompas, 2008.
  37. Sunyoto, & Octama P., NF (2023). Legal Study of the Conversion of Building Use Rights Certificates into Ownership Rights Certificates by Foundations. Scientific Journal of Advocacy, 11(1).https://doi.org/10.36987/jiad.v11i1.3742
  38. Circular Letter of the Supreme Court Number 7 of 2012 concerning the Legal Formulation of the Results of the Plenary Meeting of the Supreme Court Chamber as a Guideline for the Implementation of Duties for the Court, stipulated on 12 September 2012.
  39. Tirani, NKFD, Hartawan, IKD, & Sukmaningsih, NKIA (2026). The Validity of Land Title Certificates in Article 32 Paragraph (2) of Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997: Between Administrative Validity and Material Validity. Journal of Sui Generis Law, 6(3).
  40. Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Agrarian Regulations.
  41. Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Courts as amended.
  42. Law Number 14 of 1985 concerning the Supreme Court as amended.
  43. Vineria, V., Makkawaru, Z., & Abdurrifai. (2025). Legal Aspects of the Sale and Purchase of Customary Land in Tongkonan Baliu', North Toraja. Clavia: Journal of Law, 23(3), 601–609.https://doi.org/10.56326/clavia.v23i3.8791