PENGEMBALIAN HAK TERHADAP KEPEMILIKAN ATAS TANAH DENGAN AKTA PEJABAT PEMBUAT AKTA TANAH YANG DINYATAKAN BATAL DEMI HUKUM OLEH PUTUSAN PENGADILAN (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 38/Pdt.G/2020/PN KDR)

HELEND KASANDA S.H., 12219010 (2023) PENGEMBALIAN HAK TERHADAP KEPEMILIKAN ATAS TANAH DENGAN AKTA PEJABAT PEMBUAT AKTA TANAH YANG DINYATAKAN BATAL DEMI HUKUM OLEH PUTUSAN PENGADILAN (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 38/Pdt.G/2020/PN KDR). Masters thesis, Universitas Narotama.

[img] Text (HALAMAN JUDUL)
cover.pdf
Download (5MB)
[img] Text (BAB I)
bab I.pdf
Download (4MB)
[img] Text (BAB II)
bab II.pdf
Download (4MB)
[img] Text (BAB III)
bab III.pdf
Download (4MB)
[img] Text (BAB IV)
bab IV.pdf
Download (4MB)
[img] Text (DAFTAR PUSTAKA DAN LAMPIRAN)
daftar pustaka dan lampiran.pdf
Download (5MB)

Abstract

UUPA No. 5 of 1960 required a land registration procedure for every citizen who has an interest in proof of ownership of land. This provision also requires the PPAT to make an authentic deed in every agreement process that results in the transfer of rights to land and apartment units. Departing from cases that have resulted in a permanent decision by the Kediri District Court No. 38/Pdt.G/2020/PN KDR, the author intends to raise a problem in the form of: What are the legal consequences of a sale and purchase deed that is canceled by a court decision? Furthermore, can a Court Decision serve as the basis for transferring the name to a Sale and Purchase Deed that is canceled by law? This research is aimed at examining with a knife analysis of jurisprudence regarding the ownership status of land whose deed was canceled by the court and reviewing the formal legal aspects of the position and strength of proof of PPAT deeds which were canceled by a court decision. In this research, the authors chose a descriptive-empirical research method using a statutory approach or statute approach, a conceptual approach, and an analytical approach. In the case that gave birth to Decision Number 38/Pdt.G/2020/PN KD it can be seen that the AJB which stated the sale and purchase process between the land owner (Plaintiff) and the buyer who occupied the position of the Defendant did not go through the process of making the AJB related to the obligation for the PPAT to read out the contents -the main contents of the agreement in the presence of both parties. On the other hand, the Defendant and Co-Defendant showed no good faith in the process of making AJB. In accordance with Article 1 paragraph (4) PP No. 24 of 2016, AJB is a deed made by a PPAT and evidence of legal actions involving land rights. Article 1320 of the Civil Code stipulates the requirements that must be met in an agreement. Based on this provision and the court's evidence and facts, the Judge determined that AJB No. 26/X/P/JB/1989 is considered null and void. Furthermore, the process of changing the name of land ownership with SHM No. 324 from the Plaintiff to the Defendant is considered never to have happened. Keywords: Notarial sale and purchase agreement, PPAT, transfer of title, null and void, court decision.

Item Type: Thesis (Masters)
Subjects: K Law > K Law (General)
Divisions: Fakultas Hukum > Magister Kenotariatan
Depositing User: Repository Administrator
Date Deposited: 28 Nov 2023 02:04
Last Modified: 28 Nov 2023 02:04
URI: http://repository.narotama.ac.id/id/eprint/1867

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year