Heirs of Sultan Deli X’s Legal Position on Land Procurement Object
for Medan-Binjai Highway Project
Wilson Wijaya and Elvira Fitriyani Pakpahan
Post-Graduate Master of Notary Programme, Universitas Prima Indonesia, Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia
Keywords: Dispute, Land Ownership, Customary Land, Highway, Land Procurement, Public Interest.
Abstract: Land is an entity that is very vital in a country and often used as the object of disputes. One example is the
dispute over land ownership which was used as the object of land procurement for the construction of the
Medan-Binjai highway which is located at the village of Tanjung Mulia Hilir, Medan Deli District, Medan
City, North Sumatra Province, where the heirs of Sultan Deli X were suing to the Medan District Court and
Medan High Court with Case Number 429/Pdt/2018/PT MDN. This research analysed the position of the
heirs of Sultan Deli X in terms of the enforcement of civil and land law in the Republic of Indonesia. The
research used a combination of normative and empirical juridical methods, in which the Primary data is
tested and developed based on secondary data and to find out certainty of applicable law. The Court
Decision of the dispute said above has fulfilled the legal certainty of the Certificate of Property Rights
claimed by Sultan Deli X's heirs and disqualified ownership of Sultan Deli X's heirs at dispute because the
validity of the basis of ownership of the land and the rights of the heirs have expired in the trial.
1 INTRODUCTION
Customs have strong bond and influence in
communities that depend on the people who support
the customs themselves. Customs and customary
laws can be distinguished from the rules that live in
the community and the sanctions for those who
violate the rules. Malinowski stated that the
difference between customs and law is based on two
criteria, namely the source of sanctions and the
sanctions’ implementation. In the customs, the
source of sanctions implementation is in the citizens
of community, either it is individually or in groups,
the sanctions are also implemented among the
groups themselves. In law, the sanctions and its
implementation is centralized onto the certain
agencies in society (Anggoro, T., 2017).
Customary law contains elements that derived
from the values that have been ingrained in society
through the actions of the community. These values
then evolved into unwritten mutually agreed norms.
These norms are then enforced by institutions or
organizations, which are sanctioned and influenced
by the religion or belief that embraces the
community. These values and norms are still being
referred in national and state life, and is often
referred as local wisdom (Makmur, 2019).
During the Dutch Colonization period between
year 1816-1829, there was a debate among the
Dutch government regarding the principles and
patterns of agrarian wisdom based on the view that
the state as the owner or who owns a part of land
(staatseigendom). As a result, there were 2 (two)
thoughts, namely the Asian tradition that based on
the power of the King of Asia and the Western
tradition that born of Western which is based on the
form of lease and legitimate farmers’ rights.
The indigenous people’s land’s rights regulated
that the General Governor should not take the land
that belongs to the people which was been acquired
from forest clearing and was being used for their
own purposes, villages that own the land and general
grazing places. The indigenous people’s land’s
rights that have been obtained for generations could
be granted with the eigendom right. Although this
regulation recognizes the indigenous people’s rights,
it was obviously restricting the implementation only
on the directly community-owned land. For the land
that was not directly owned, it became the eigendom
property of the state and the use of the land was
regulated through the Agrarische Wet which was
known by the statement of ownership or domein
Wijaya, W. and Pakpahan, E.
Heirs of Sultan Deli X’s Legal Position on Land Procurement Object for Medan-Binjai Highway Project.
DOI: 10.5220/0010313200003051
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tourism, and Innovation Technologies (CESIT 2020), pages 435-447
ISBN: 978-989-758-501-2
Copyright
c
 2022 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
435

verklaring through the regulation of Article 1 of
agrarische besluit (S 1879. No. 118) as the
implementing regulation of Agrarische Wet
(Sukirno, 2008).
After Indonesia proclaimed their independence
in 1945, the efforts to end the excessive land
resource ownerships by the colonizers continued
through the establishment of a National Agrarian
Law that was along with the people’s side.
Considering that land is the God's gift to all mankind
and the condition of Indonesia which is patterned as
an agrarian nation where people can not be separated
from the land, then the “land for farmers”
philosophy became the basis of national land law
establishment. This philosophy was then formulated
in Law No. 5 of 1960 about the Basic Rules of
Agrarian Fundamentals (UUPA), while removing
the dualism of the land law, domein verklaring and
feudalism. The establishment of national agrarian
law was based on customary law because it was seen
as an accordance with the personality of the
Indonesian people and the law of the original
Indonesian people.
The realization of the value of legal certainty,
justice, and usefulness/benefit were meaningful if it
makes farmers become wealthier and prosperous.
However, in its development, the basic value had
shifted due to the influence of capitalism that affects
the Indonesian economic system (Hasnati, 2008).

The indigenous people’s rights were degrading
continuously as a result of the government's policy
insistence that saw the land only from economic
aspects. In certain circumstances, customs and
customary laws were feared as a danger or threat to
democratic civilization and humanitarian values.
Custom was also being thought to threaten the
rational modern political system. This condition was
caused by an assumption that customs and
customary law were not placed in the sense of a
system of regulating and organizing life in the
community.
2 METHODS
This article aims to identify and explain the Heirs of
Sultan Deli X’s Legal Position on Land Procurement
Object for Medan-Binjai Highway Develpoment
Project by determining the Land Ownership’s Legal
Provision and identifying the procedure of Land
Rights’ Legal Certainty’s Guarantee.
This research uses both normative and empirical
methods in order to identify and reach the
objectives. Normative research method is a research
that involve the law principals, law systems, law
synchronizations, law histories and law
comparations. Empirical research method is an
approach that is to analyze about the effectiveness of
a law product in community. The researchers
combined the study of law products such as Private
Law, Land Law and Customary Law with those law
products’ implementations in community.
The empirical method of this research took place
in Tanjung Mulia Hilir Village, Medan Deli District,
Medan City, North Sumatera by interviewing the
citizens and Head of the Tanjung Mulia Hilir
Village. The information obtained from interview
session with the Head of Tanjung Mulia Hilir
Village and it’s people, then was being synchronized
with information obtained from literature to find out
how much the Sultan Deli X’s influence affected the
land ownerships in Tanjung Mulia Hilir Village in
the past. This information was also combined with
present law products to find out the existence of
Communities’ Law (Adat Law) in existing National
Land Law.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Some of the previous researches that have been
conducted, as follows:
 Reconstruction of the Complete Systematic Land
Registration Regulation Based on Justice Value,
by Nurhayati Desy Dwi Hartanti, et al. in 2020;
 Reconstruction of Law Enforcement of State
Land Possessed by Community Based on Value
of Justice:Study in the Directorate General of
Water Resources of Indonesia, by Sugiyanto, et
al. in 2020;
 Reconstruction of Legal Use of State’s Land by
People as an Embodiment of Welfare State
Based on Justice Value, by Rosdiana, et al. in
2020;
 The Status of Rechtsverwerking in the Land
Registration System in Indonesia, by Taufiq Yuli
Purnama, et. al. in 2020;
 Land Ownership Based on National Land Law in
Indonesia, by Irene Eka Sihombing in 2018;
 Land Ownership Reform in Islam, by Ridwan in
2018;
 The Future of Land Ownership Regulation in
Indonesia by Yubaidi, R. S. in 2020;
 The Role of Customary Land Ownership in
Land-Use Conversion in the Peri-urban of
Bukittinggi, Indonesia by Darwin, I. S., et. al. in
2019.
CESIT 2020 - International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tourism, and Innovation Technologies
436

Compared to the 8 mentioned researches above,
this research used two research methods instead of
one by involving the head and the people of Tanjung
Mulia Hilir Village as used by the eighth research.
By interviewing them, researchers obtained more
accurate and more reliable resources so that the law
products’ effectiveness in Tanjung Mulia Hilir
Village could be clearly distinguished.
3.1 Legal Provisions on Land
Ownership According to UUPA
The State acts as the organization of people’s power.
The State’s Controlling Right is intended in the
UUPA (Article 1 paragraph 2) which authorizes the
State to:
a. Regulate and administer the provision, usage,
supply and the care of earth, water and space;
b. Determine and regulate the legal relationships
between people and earth, water and space;
c. Determine and regulate the legal relationships
between people and legal deeds that concern
on the earth, water and space.
Based on the State’s Controlling Right as
referred in Article 2, there are various rights to the
land which can be given to and owned by people and
legal entities (UUPA, Article 4 paragraph 1). This
article authorizes the use of land as well as the body
of the earth, water and the space above it, only if it is
necessary for the interests that directly related to the
use of the land within the limitations of this law and
other higher legal regulations (Parlindungan, A. P.,
2006).
According to Suseno, F. M. (1987) as cited by
Salfutra, R. D. (2019), the concept of the State’s
Controlling Rights is unseparable from the concepts
of Power and Authority. Control, power and
authority are closely related to the coercion that
manifests in the sanctions of the law (Salfutra, R.D.,
2019). So power is the coma of authority. In law,
this authority is valid if implemented under
applicable law. Exceptionally, the authority is
owned by the State, so the State has the right to
demand compliance. Therefore, the State’s authority
or power is within the scope of public law.
The power is also related to civil law, namely the
ability to do something (bekwaam and bekvougd)
(Erwiningsih, W., 2009). Furthermore, Erwiningsih,
W (2009) explained that the State as the holder of
power can have legal relationships with objects,
such as individual objects with humans as their
owners. The legal relationship of the State with the
land belongs to the category of objects or land used
for public use (res publicae). The consequences are
that public roads et cetera are State-owned for
reasons, namely:
a. The special legal relationship between the state
and the lands that are in the category of res
publicae in publico usu, which is a deviation
from the res publicae in patrimonio (objects
that become the general public’s wealth);
b. The power of law exercised by the state to the
land, especially those which is used by the
public, has the same content as the power that
the State exercises to other lands that used
infinitely. The content of this power has the
same character as the power of an individual in
civil law.
c. The land that is being used for public services,
such as government office buildings, including
res publicae in publico usu, so that it’s belong
to the State.
Personal rights on land are the natural rights of
people, and the people themselves acts as the subject
of personal law (naturlijk). The placement of the
human right to own that is of a human nature shows
that the strong position of man on the land, so as to
exclude landowning by the State. On this basis, the
State is unlikely to have the right to land but only to
control, regulate the use and provise the land.
Kalo, S. (2006) as cited by Salfutra, R.D.
mentioned that the State is not arbitrarily owns the
land, but rather to allocate it for the whole
Indonesian citizens’ interest. This provision actually
wasn’t described clearly,
 so it is easy to experience
irregularities and misappropriation or abuse in
connection with the exercise of the State’s
Controlling Rights. For example, the takeover of
indigenous rights over land for the usage of
development for the State’s interest. The State’s
Controlling Rights has a public aspect in the form of
regulating supply, usage, provision and
maintenance, regulating legal relations, regulating
legal relationships and legal actions. This shows that
the State’s Controlling Rights does not mean the
State as a landowner.
The relationship between land ownership and
buildings has a very strong relationship with
agrarian law. However, in the UUPA it is not
elaborated on the legal relationship, although in
practice the problems that arise always relate to the
legal relationship. To know the relationship of
ownership of land rights with buildings or other
objects on it, there are several principles that can be
used as a basis to know it, namely:
1. Principle of Attachment
Land, building or other things that matter are
something called objects. The matter is found
Heirs of Sultan Deli X’s Legal Position on Land Procurement Object for Medan-Binjai Highway Project
437

in the Civil Code which adheres to the
principle of natrekking beginsel or accessie
principle, or more commonly known as the
principle of attachment. The provisions of
article 500 of the Civil Code have outlined
that the building and plant are part of its land.
Then in Article 571 of the Civil Code explains
that the building established, the plant planted
on the land, because the law belongs to the
one who has the land, unless or there is
another agreement (Salfutra, R. D., 2019).
2. Principle of Horizontal Separation (Horizontal
Scheiding)
In line with the enactment of the UUPA, the
provisions of the Civil Code above were
revoked and replaced with the principle of
horizontal separation which became the legal
basis of objects in the national agrarian law
(Ismaya, S., 2011). The principle of horizontal
separation can be used in the case that the
building stands on the land of indigenous
rights. In accordance with this principle, there
is a separation between land and buildings.
The land is subject to the laws of land and
buildings subject to the law of the liabilities.
He who owns the land does not always be the
owner of a building that someone else has
built on his land (Salfutra R. D., 2019).
3.2 Land Registration as a Guarantee
of Legal Certainty of Land Rights
UUPA laid the groundwork on the rules on the
mastery, ownership, provision, use and control of
land utilization aimed at managing and utilizing the
land for the greater prosperity of the people. One of
the aspects needed for that purpose is about the
certainty of land rights that are the main basis in the
framework of legal certainty of land ownership.
Rosdiana, et al. (2020) explained that Indonesia's
philosophy in the concept of the relationship
between humans and land places individuals and
communities as an inseparable unit (dual), that the
fulfillment of one's needs for land is placed within
the framework of the needs of the whole community
so that the relationship is not merely individualistic,
but rather is collective in nature while still providing
place and respect for individual rights. This is an
embodiment of the Indonesian state as a welfare
state. As mentioned in Article 2 paragraph (3) of the
Agrarian Law, state authority derived from the right
to control natural resources by the state is used for
the greatest prosperity of the people.

Santoso, U. (2015) investigated that the
guarantee of legal certainty regarding land rights for
all Indonesian people, which is one of the objectives
of enacting UUPA can be realized through two
efforts, namely:
1. The availability of written, complete and clear
legal devices that are implemented
consistently in accordance with the soul and
its provisions;
2. The implementation of land registration that
makes it is possible for land rights holders to
easily prove the right to land that it controls,
and for interested parties, such as prospective
buyers and prospective creditors, to obtain the
necessary information about the land to be the
object of legal action to be carried out, as well
as for the Government to exercise the
discretion of the land.
Article 19 of the UUPA sets the basis of land
registration, as follows:
(1) To ensure legal certainty by the Government,
land registration is held throughout the
Republic of Indonesia in accordance with the
provisions governed by government
regulations.
(2) The registration in paragraph (1) of this article
includes:
a. Measurement, mapping and bookkeeping of
land;
b. Registration of land rights and the transfer
of such rights;
c. The provision of proof of rights, which
applies as a powerful evidentiary tool.
(3) Land registration is organized with the state
and community in mind, socioeconomic
traffic needs and the possibility of
implementation, according to the
consideration of the Republic of Indonesia’s
Minister of Agrarian.
(4) In the Government Regulation, it is mentioned
that the costs concerned with registration are
intended in paragraph (1) above, provided that
people who cannot afford to be exempted
from the payment of such fees.
In The Explanation IV of the UUPA, it has been
determined that:
"Land registration will be held with a mind that
the interests and circumstances of the state and the
community of socioeconomic traffic needs and its
possibilities in the field of personnel and equipment.
Therefore, it will take precedence in cities to
gradually increase in cadastral covering the entire
country. In accordance with its purpose that will
provide legal certainty, the registration is required
CESIT 2020 - International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tourism, and Innovation Technologies
438

for the right-holders concerned, with the intention
that they obtain the certainty about the right. In
addition, the birth of article 10 in the UUPA is
addressed to the government as an instruction for
ensuring the legal certainty of the land by doing such
land registration or rechtskadaster in Indonesia."
As an effort to ensure legal certainty in the land,
in 1997 Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 on
Land Registration (GR of Land Registration) had
been issued as an improvement to UUPA. This
Government Regulation retained the purpose and
system that is used in the registration of land which
in the rights above the land had been established in
the UUPA, where the registration of land is held in
order to provide guaranteed legal certainty of land
with a negative system with positive element,
because it will produce letters of proof of rights that
apply as a powerful proof (Salfutra, R. D., 2019).
The implementation of land registration a.k.a
registration of land rights which was carried out
based on the provisions of UUPA and GR Number
24 of 1997 is using the principle of publicity and the
principle of specialty. The principle of publicity is
being reflected in the existence of land registration
stating the subject of the right, type of right, transfer
and assignment. Meanwhile, the principle of
specialty is being reflected in the presence of
physical data on land rights such as land area, land
location, and land boundaries. The principle of
publicity and the principle of specialty are being
contained in a list so that anyone who wants to know
about it can easily find out. This means that anyone
who wants to know the data on the land does not
need to conduct a direct investigation into the
location of the land concerned because all the data
can be easily obtained at the Land Office. Therefore,
each transfer of land rights can run smoothly,
orderly and efficiently.
The purpose and objective of the government to
register land or it’s rights is to ensure legal certainty
regarding to a plot of land, namely in the context of
proving if there’s a dispute and/or in the context of
opening up matters concerning the land. Herein lies
the relationship between the principle of publicity
and the principle of specialty in implementing a land
registration or registration of land rights in
Indonesia.
The meaning of land registration is mentioned in
Article 1 number 1 PP Number 24 of 1997, namely a
series of activities carried out by the Government
continuously and regularly, including data
collection, data processing, bookkeeping and
presentation, as well as maintenance of physical data
and juridical data, in the form of maps and lists,
concerning land parcels and apartment units,
including the issuance of certificates as proof of
their rights for land parcels which there are already
rights and ownership rights over apartment units and
certain rights that impose them. Juridically, in the
form of maps and lists, regarding land parcels and
apartment units, including the granting of certificates
as proofs of their rights for land parcels which there
were already a rights and ownership rights to
apartment units and certain rights which burden.
According to Salfutra, R. D. (2019), there are
basic principles for land registration reference,
namely:
 Simple principles, which are intended so that
the basic provisions and procedures can easily
be understood by interested parties;
 The principle of safety, which is intended to
indicate that the registration of the land needs
to be organized carefully, so that the results can
provide a guarantee of legal certainty;
 Affordable principles, which are intended on
the affordability of those in need, especially
with regard to the needs and capabilities of the
low economy class;
 The cutting-edge principle, which is intended
to be adequate completeness in its
implementation and continuity in the
maintenance of its data.
 The open principle, which is intended so that
the data stored in the Office of the National
Land Agency about the land is always in
accordance with the real circumstances in the
field and the public can get information about
the correct data at any time.
In land registration, it is generally known that
there are 2 (two) land registration systems, namely
positive systems and negative systems (Salfutra, R.
D., 2019).
The positive system means that what is
listed in the land registration book and the proof of
rights issued is an absolute proof. Third parties in
good faith acting on the basis of such evidence
receive absolute protection, even if it turns out that
the information contained in it is incorrect. (Salfutra,
R. D., 2019). The negative system means that the
proof of rights applies as a powerful proof tool in
which all information that is included in it has the
force of law to be accepted as a true fact during and
as long as there is no other evidentiary tool that
proves otherwise. If there is any other evidence that
can prove otherwise, then it is the court that decides
the correct proof. If the information in the proof of
rights is wrong, then changes and corrections are
necessary.
Heirs of Sultan Deli X’s Legal Position on Land Procurement Object for Medan-Binjai Highway Project
439

Regarding these land registration systems above,
Salfutra R. D. (2019) explained that the registration
of land used in Indonesia is a negative system with
positive tendency. This means that the weaknesses
of the negative system are being reduced in such
ways, so that the legal certainty can be achieved.
This is in accordance with Article 19 paragraph (2)
letter c of the UUPA which does not order the use of
a positive system, that in this land registration
system, the proof of rights issued is a powerful proof
of proof, but not absolute. The origin of choosing a
negative land registration system with positive
dependence is, as follows:
 In negative system, the guarantee of protection
provided to third parties is not absolute, as in
positive systems. Third parties should still
always be careful and should not absolutely
believe in what is listed in what is issued. The
weakness of this system is offset by the
principle, that third parties who are in good
faith and base their actions on the information
provided by the registration of the land,
generally get law protection.
 2. UUPA does not choose a positive system,
because the implementation of this system
takes a lot of time, effort and cost. This does
not mean that the registration of land with a
negative system ordered by the UUPA will not
be held thoroughly. Although a rechtscadaster
always has a thoroughness in its maintenance,
it does not need to be as careful as a positive
system.
Perangin, E. (2008) as cited in Salfutra, R. D.
(2019) explained that in negative system,
registration officers are not passive, meaning they do
not take for granted what is submitted and are said
by the party requesting registration. The
implementing officers are required to conduct
research as necessary to prevent mistakes from
occurring. The boundaries of the land are set by
using the contradictoire delimitatie system, where
before the land and its rights are recorded, the first
announcement is held. Disputes are submitted to the
court if they cannot be resolved on their own by the
interested. This means the party whose name is
listed as the rights holder in the land book and
certificate always faces the possibility of a lawsuit
from another party who feels they own the land.
Parlindungan, A. P. (2006) as cited by Salfutra
R. D. (2019) investigated that to overcome this
weakness as mentioned above, there is a
rechtsverwerking institution in customary law where
if a person for so long leaves his land unworked and
the land is done by someone else who obtains it in
good faith, then it loses its right to reclaim the land.
In connection with this, in the Torrens System there
is also known as the examiner of title institution
(Land Committee) which gives the opportunity to
the person or party who feels his right is stronger
than contained in a certificate, so to claim this must
be by submitting it to the local court with adagium
who feels entitled to submit his evidence. If it’s
convincing, the court judge declares that the
certificate is void, and states the person who filed
the case is more entitled and convincing. Budhayati
(2008) as cited in Purnama (2020) stated that
Rechtsverwerking concept is known in customary
law as a consequence of the existence of nomad
lifestyles of indigenous people who always move
their residence by opening the forest and leave it if it
gives no results and cannot be utilized. In Indonesian
law, the Rechtsverwerking Institute has been
recognized for its existence in national law, as an
evidenced by the existence of several decisions of
the Supreme Court which based its decision on
Rechtsverwerking.
The land registration activity is further described
in Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997, namely:
1. Land registration activity for the first time
(Opzet) as mentioned in Article 1 number 9
GR No. 24 of 1997 is a land registration
activity carried out against land registration
objects that have not been registered under GR
No. 10 of 1961 or GR No. 24 of 1997;
2. Data maintenance activities (Bijhouding or
Maintenance) as mentioned in Article 1
number 12 GR No. 24 of 1997 are land
registration activities to adjust physical data
and juridical data in registration maps, land
listings, rosters, measuring letters, land books
and certificates with changes that occur later.
3.3 The Heirs of Sultan Deli X’s Legal
Position that Occupying the Land
Procurement Object for
Medan-Binjai Highway
Development Project
The land that became the land procurement object
for Medan-Binjai Highway Development Project, is
a part of the land that had been claimed as a
belonging of the Heirs of the late Sultan Amaluddin
Sani Perkasa Alamsjah (Sultan Deli X) based on
Sultan’s Grant which was being converted into a
Surat Keterangan Haq Memperusahai Tanah
(Certificate of Land Usage Right) with List No.
90/Dbl. KLD/"60 published by Asisten Wedana
(Head of Sub-District) of Labuhan Deli Sub-District
CESIT 2020 - International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tourism, and Innovation Technologies
440

dated July 22
nd
, 1960 and was also being signed by
Prakit Pradja Kewedanaan of Labuhan Deli Sub-
District jo. Location Map dated August 08
th
, 1960.
As one of the land area that owned by the Sultan
Deli, the ownership of the land has been going on
since before 1924, during the leadership of Sultan
Ma'moen Al Rasjid Perkasa Alamsjah or better
known as Sultan Deli IX. On September 9
th
, 1924,
Sultan Deli IX rested in peace and through the Peace
Letter of The Division of The Estate of the late
Sultan Deli IX dated February 28
th
, 1928, especially
on page 8 (eight) article 6 (six) mentioned that the
ownership of one of the rice fields in Tanjung Mulia
(Tanah Abang) with an area of 150 Hectares located
in Kampung Tegal Rejo, Tanjung Mulia Village,
Labuhan Deli District, Deli Serdang Regency (now
known as Tanjung Mulia Hilir Village, Medan Deli
sub-district, Medan City) had been transferred to the
late Sultan Amaluddin Sani Perkasa Alamsjah
(Sultan Deli X).
On 04 October 1945, Sultan Amaluddin Sani
Perkasa Alamsjah (Sultan Deli X) died and left 12
(twelve) children of 4 (four) wives as his heirs. This
is stated as stipulated in the Court of Syariah of
Medan with Registration No. 260/1966, dated
August 4
th
, 1966 AD which coincided on 15
Rabiulakhir 1386 Hijriah which was reinforced with
the Statement of Heirs of Sultan Amaluddin Sani
Perkasa Alamsjah (Sultan Deli X) compiled by
Tengku Soehaimy Hidayat Al Haj and Tengku
Abdul Aziz on June 15
th
, 2011. After the death of
the late Sultan Amaluddin Sani Perkasa Alamsjah,
the area of 150 Hectares which is located in Tanjung
Mulia Hilir Village, Medan Deli District, Medan
City, North Sumatra Province has not been shared
with his heirs until now.
The occupation of the land by the people of
Kampung Rejo, Kepenghuluan Tanjung Mulia,
Labuhan Deli Sub-District, Deli Serdang Regency
was originally began on April 20, 1948, where the
land of Sultan’s Grant status was granted rental
rights to the surrounding people who occupied the
land, provided that the community had to pay rent to
the Heirs of Sultan Deli X through the rent collectors
namely Mohd. Jahja, Ismail and Rejowinangom
through The Letter of Duty quoting Rent dated April
20
th
, 1948 made by Tengkoe Amiroedin as the legal
representative of the Heir of the Sultan Deli X.
By The Heir of Sultan Deli X, Sultan’s Grant
was then converted to Surat Keterangan Haq
Memperusahai Tanah (Certificate of Land Usage
Right) that was also being signed by Prakit Pradja
Kewedanaan Labuhan Deli Sub-District B. Sjahban
and Head of Labuhan Deli Sub-District Murad El
Fuad with List No. 90/Dbl.KLD/"60, dated July
22
nd
, 1960. Where the land status of Sultan’s Grant
has been measured by the Agrarian Office of Deli
Serdang which is founded in the map made by J.
Lumbantobing and signed by Ngatiman, Head of
Tanjung Mulia Village and Anwar Rasyid as Head
of Agrarian Office of Deli Serdang Regency, dated
August 08
th
, 1960. The map was created and re-
measured by Datuq Indra Syafri in 2017 which is set
out in the Land Situation Map dated July 19
th
, 2017
for 150 Hectares land located in Tanjung Mulia
Village.
After obtaining the Surat Keterangan Haq
Memperusahai Tanah (Certificate of Land Usage
Right) which is a conversion of Sultan’s Grant,
through a Letter from Abdullah Eteng (Member of
the House of Representatives Commission II) dated
November 30
th
, 1978 on the Case Position on the
Land of Heirs of Sultan Amaluddin Sani Perkasa
Alamsjah (Sultan Deli X) in Kampung Tegal Rejo,
Tanjung Mulia Village, it is known that the heirs of
Sultan Amaluddin Sani Perkasa Alamsjah through
Sultan Osman Sani Perkasa Alamsjah (Sultan Deli
XI) gave power to Alboin Pakpahan to cultivate on
the land since May 31
st
, 1962 to August 31
st
, 1962 (3
months). However, on September 16
th
, 1962 Alboin
Pakpahan sold the land to 13 (thirteen) names who
were rubber factory workers in Simalungun Regency
that owned by a foreigner named Tan Ho Seng. The
sale of the land was done without the knowledge of
the Heirs of The Sultan Deli X and against the land,
has been issued certificate of property rights on
behalf of the thirteen names above by the Land
Office of Medan City, namely:
 Sajam with Certificates of Ownership No. 159
with the width of 100.000 m
2
;
 Katimun with Certificates of Ownership No.
160 with the width of 120.000 m
2
;
 Sadjiman with Certificates of Ownership No.
161 with the width of 120.000 m
2
;
 Pipin Hutahayan with Certificates of
Ownership No. 162 with the width of 120.000
m
2
;
 Nimrod Hutahayan with Certificates of
Ownership No. 163 with the width of 100.000
m
2
;
 M. Yamin with Certificates of Ownership No.
164 with the width of 120.000 m
2
;
 Djamin with Certificates of Ownership No. 165
with the width of 120.000 m
2
;
 Maruli Sirait with Certificates of Ownership
No. 171 with the width of 120.000 m
2
;
 Muller Pakpahan with Certificates of
Ownership No. 173 with the width of 120.000
Heirs of Sultan Deli X’s Legal Position on Land Procurement Object for Medan-Binjai Highway Project
441

m
2
;
 Amat Aminu with Certificates of Ownership
No. 193 with the width of 100.000 m
2
;
 Ahmat Sipan with Certificates of Ownership
No. 202 with the width of 120.000 m
2
;
 Abdul Cholik Nasution with Certificates of
Ownership No. 161 yang diubah/dikonversi
menjadi SHM No. 213 with the width of
120.000 m
2
;
 Amat Wakidin with Certificates of Ownership
No. 428 with the width of 18.800 m
2
.
The condition as mentioned above, certainly
raises the objections of people whose rights are
threatened. This is because the people had paid the
rent to the Sultan Deli X, but suddenly the land they
were renting had been issued Certificates of
Ownerships which originated from the sale of a
portion of the land by Alboin Pakpahan which was
authorized by the Heirs of the Sultan Deli X only to
cultivate the land, not to sell the land.
Allegations of manipulation by Alboin
Pakpahan, were reinforced by The Letter of
Chairman II and First Secretary of the Parent Board
of The Public Servant Cooperative (PSC) throughout
Indonesia at the time, namely HM. Husni Surya and
H. Ismail Siregar with No. 604/K-IX/1974 dated
October 3
rd
, 1974 with the cancellation of the Sale
and Purchase Act addressed to Alboin Pakpahan.
The core of the letter is the Co-operative Parent
Board of The Public Servant Cooperative (PSC)
objecting to Alboin Pakpahan's stance that canceled
The Act of Sale and Purchase No. 40/1971 dated
August 7
th
, 1971 unilaterally.
This letter was then followed up by a letter from
Dorman Saragih as the Joint Administrator of The
Civil Servants Union of North Sumatra Province
addressed to the Head of the Agrarian Directorate of
Medan Municipality with No. 434a/H-IX-I/75 dated
November 05
th
, 1974 with the subject of the
Cancellation of the Sale and Purchase Act which
essentially questioned the existence of one of the 13
Certificates of Ownerships which were issued as
mentioned above. The same was said by R.P.
Soeroso and H. Abdul Malik Miraza through a
Letter addressed to the Head of The Agrarian Sub-
Directorate of Medan on February 25, 1975 and a
Letter addressed to the Director General of Agrarian
in Jakarta with the number 712/C-I/1975 dated
March 03
rd
,1975 which essentially questioned the
existence of one of the 13 Certificates of
Ownerships that had been issued, namely on behalf
of Muller Pakpahan where the certificate was
obtained through a trade conducted by Alboin
Pakpahan who had formally cancelled as the
beneficiary of the power of Sultan Osman Al-Sani
Perkasa Alamsjah (Chief Heir of the Sultan Deli X).
This objection was also responded by Abbas as a
representative of Tegal Rejo Land Farmers in a letter
addressed to the Head of Central Order Operations
in Jakarta dated February 08
th
, 1979 which is
essentially explained that in 1960, There has been
manipulation of land purchases by Alboin Pakpahan
as a cancelled beneficiary of power to 13 buyers
who were touted as workers of a Chinese Foreigner
named Tan Ho Seng who owns a Rubber Factory in
Simalungun Regency. Until year 1972 to 1973, 13
Certificates of Ownerships were issued based on the
deed of sale and purchase above.
The public objection to SHM issued based on the
deed of sale and sale carried out by Alboin Pakpahan
above is further contrasted with the good
relationship between the Heirs of Sultan Deli X and
the people of Tanjung Mulia Hilir Village through
the Joint Capital dated September 07
th
, 2007 which
in essence the people of Tanjung Mulia Hilir Village
are willing to complete the entire acquisition of land
rights with the Heirs as long as it does not harm both
sides.
On November 07
th
, 1982, the Director General of
Agrarian Minister through Letter Number
593.722/4373/692 confirmed that based on the
results of his research, there were 16 (sixteen)
Certificates of Ownership that previously amounted
to 13 (thirteen) Certificate of Property issued on land
owned by the Heirs of the Sultan Deli X and all of
which are juridically defects.
Following up on the letter from the Director
General of Agraria above, Acting Director General
of The General Government on behalf of the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Drs. H. Sutrisno, M.Si
wrote to the National Land Agency of the Republic
of Indonesia in Jakarta on June 07
th
, 2010 which
essentially followed up the Heirs of Sultan Deli X's
Application on the Reaffirmation of the Letter of the
Director General of Agrarian above. It is also
intended in a letter from the Secretary of North
Sumatra Province to the Regional Office of the
National Land Agency of North Sumatra Province
No. 597/7374 dated August 04, 2010.
Based on the above letter, the National Land
Agency (BPN) in Jakarta through Drs. Aryanto
Sutadi, MH., M.Sc as Deputy for The Assessment
and Handling of Land Disputes and Conflicts
instructed the Head of the Regional Office of the
National Land Agency of North Sumatra Province to
conduct a re-investigation of Sultan Deli X's 150 Ha
Private Land with letter No. 875/26.1-600/III/2011
dated March 21
st
, 2011.
CESIT 2020 - International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tourism, and Innovation Technologies
442

In addition, T. Isyawari as the beneficial of
power of the Heirs of Sultan Deli X through his
letter addressed to the Central Land Agency (BPN)
on May 12
th
, 2011 also questioned the status of
rights of 150 Hectares land in Kampung Tegal Rejo,
Tanjung Mulia Village which is based on Surat
Keterangan Haq Memperusahai Tanah (Certificate
of Land Usage Right) List No. 90/Dbl.KLD/"60,
dated July 22
nd
, 1960 as well as the essence of 13
fake Certificates of Ownerships which were
published on the land of Sultan Amaluddin Sani
Perkasa Alamsjah.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Deputy for the
Study and Handling of Land Disputes and Conflicts
at the National Land Agency (BPN) Drs. Aryanto
Sutadi, MH., M.Sc invited the 42 parties directly
involved in the land dispute (including the heirs of
the late Sultan Amaluddin Sani Perkasa Alamsjah)
by letter No. 1844/002-600/VI/2011 dated
June 9
th
, 2011 to Hold a Land Case with a land
object of 150 hectares in Tanjung Mulia Hilir
Village, Medan Deli District, Medan City.
Following up on the letter, the Land Case Title as
mentioned above was carried out. As a result, the
National Land Agency (BPN) through the Minutes
of Implementation of Case No.
56/BAHGP/DV/2011, dated June 16
th
, 2011 on land
objects covering an area of 150 Hectares in Tanjung
Mulia Hilir Village, Medan Deli District, Medan
City, North Sumatra Province confirms that the 13
Certificates of Ownerships as mentioned above are
judically defects. Regarding those as mentioned
above, the Regional Office of the National Land
Agency of North Sumatra Province also proved that
the entire Certificates of Ownerships was not
physically owned and the whereabouts of the
owning party were not known. As for the contents of
the Minutes of the Implementation of Case Titles
above, in essence the thirteen Certificates of
Ownerships are legally disabled, because:
 The validity of the proof of ownership of each
certificate owner in lieu of Sultan’s Grant is
doubtful;
 Measurement of the land parts which based the
Certificates of Ownerships’ issuance has never
been conducted;
 The issuance of a number of Certificates of
Ownerships did not take the proper procedure;
 Whereas if the SHM can be canceled, then the
land status will return to its original status,
namely Sultan’s Grant, because from the
results of the research it is not found that the
land is declared as state land.
The recommendations from the results of the
Case Title are as follows:
 Cancels the Certificates of Ownerships which
were proven to have administrative defects in
its issuance;
 The heir of Sultan Amaluddin Sani Perkasa
Alamsjah (Sultan Deli X) can file a lawsuit at
the Court;
 Conducting deliberations with the disputing
parties.
Based on the above recommendations, the heirs
of Sultan Amaluddin Sani Perkasa Alamsjah
(Sultan Deli X) filed a lawsuit at the Medan District
Court 2 (two) times. Of the 2 (two) claims, a verdict
has been handed down and one of them has been
submitted an appeal to the High Court which is then
filed for cassation by the opposing party (defendant)
to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
Of the two decisions, all confirmed the ownership
status of the Heirs of Sultan Deli X with details, as
follows:
o Decision of the Panel of Justices of the
Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia on
civil case No. 1273 K/Pdt/2013, dated August
22
nd
, 2013 which states that the Plaintiffs (in
this case the Heirs of Sultan Deli X) are legally
valid heirs and state that the land area of
60,000 m2 previously had the status of
Certificate of Ownership No. 308/Tanjung
Mulia which is a breakdown of the Certificate
of Ownership No. 202/Tanjung Mulia with an
area of 120,000 m2 in the name of Ahmat
Sipan is the property of the Heirs of Sultan
Deli X. This decision has permanent legal force
(inkracht van gewijsde) based on the
Confirmation Letter of the Medan District
Court dated June 17
th
, 2014 signed by Sugeng
Wahyudi, SH, MH, as the Committee/Secretary
on behalf of the Chairman of the Medan
District Court.
o Decision of the Panel of Judges at the Medan
District Court on civil case No. 336/Pdt.
G/2015/PN. Mdn, dated June 26
th
, 2015 which
states that the Plaintiffs (in this case the Heirs
of Sultan Deli X) are legally valid heirs and
state that the land area of 120,000 m2
previously had the status of Certificate of
Ownership No. 173/Tanjung Mulia on behalf
of Muller Pakpahan is the property of heirs of
Sultan Deli X. This decision has permanent
legal force (inkracht van gewijsde) based on
the Certificate of the Medan District Court
dated August 2
nd
, 2016 signed by Tavid
Dwiyatmiko, SH, MH as the Committee /
Secretary on behalf of the Chairman of the
Heirs of Sultan Deli X’s Legal Position on Land Procurement Object for Medan-Binjai Highway Project
443

Medan District Court.
Sultan’s Grant is still considered as proof of
ownership of land rights and its legality is still
recognized today through the UUPA. This is in
accordance with Article 5 of the UUPA which states
that "The agrarian law that applies to the earth, water
and space is customary law, as long as it does not
conflict with national and state interests based on
national unity with Indonesian socialism ..."
Rosmidah (2010) said that in the UUPA,
basically it does not regulate the existence of these
customary rights. However, it can be said implicitly
in the UUPA that the determining criteria for
whether or not customary rights are still exist must
be seen in:
 There is a customary law community who
fulfills certain characteristics as the subject of
customary rights;
 The existence of land / territory with certain
boundaries, as living space which is the object
of customary rights;
 There is the authority of the customary law
community to carry out certain actions.
The three requirements must be met
cumulatively. In other words, if there is only one of
the conditions that is not fulfilled, then customary
rights can be said to no longer exist (Rosmidah,
2010).
Although basically the land above is mostly
controlled by approximately 300 families who have
been its cultivators since 1960 until now, based on a
joint agreement between the heirs of Sultan Deli X
and the people of Tanjung Mulia Hilir Village dated
September 7
th
, 2007, which is basically the
community of Tanjung Mulia Hilir sub-district was
willing to settle all acquisition of land rights with an
the Heirs as long as it does not harm both sides,
proving that the position of the Heirs of Sultan
Amaluddin Sani Perkasa Alamsjah (Sultan Deli X)
is still recognized today.
In addition, the Deli Sultanate as an indigenous
community, has the following characteristics
(Pratiwi A. E., et al, 2018):
1. Having a regular structure which indicates that
indigenous peoples must have a permanent or
organized structure and be established for a
long time;
2. Having a fixed area;
3. Customary communities in their management
system must have managers or rulers in them
and the management or rulers are determined
by way of deliberation
4. Having assets that can support his survival in
the form of material or immaterial.
Regarding the authority of the customary law
community to carry out certain actions as one of the
criteria for the existence of customary rights, it can
be proven by the granting of lease rights to the
surrounding communities who occupy the land,
provided that the community must pay rent to the
Sultan Deli X's heir through the the quote for the
lease namely Mohd. Jahja, Ismail and
Rejowinangom through a Letter of Duty to Quoting
the Lease dated April 20, 1948, made by Tengkoe
Amiroedin as the Attorney of Sultan Deli X's
Inheritance.
Referring to the three criteria for the existence of
customary rights as described above, the heirs of
Sultan Deli X still have a position on the land which
is the object of land acquisition for the Medan-Binjai
Toll Road construction project.
Quoting Prof. Dr. O. K. Saidin, S.H., M.Hum’s
statement as an expert witness at the trial at the
Medan District Court with case number
232/Pdt.G/2017/PN.Mdn, Sultan’s Grant is an area
land that the Sultan gave to the people and its nature
is included in public law. Sultan’s Grant is different
from Concession which is the granting of rights or
permits between the Sultan and the entrepreneur
which is bound by an agreement and its nature is
included in private law. Meanwhile, Sultan’s Grant
as referred to above is classified as "Rachim Limpah
Kurnia". The Sultan's Grant with the title "Rachim
Limpah Kurnia" has been converted into a Surat
Keterangan Haq Memperusahai Tanah (Certificate
of Land Usage Right). The Certificate was issued by
Kewedanaan (Head of Sub-District) of Labuhan Deli
District, so it was not a product of the Sultanate.
However, this Certificte of Land Usage Right can
still be used as long as it does not conflict with the
interests of the community.
Until now, the land material with the status of
Sultan’s Grant is still quite difficult to prove,
because:
1. Land position is difficult to identify in the
field;
2. The land of Sultan’s Grant was mostly
cultivated by other parties;
3. There are many Sultan’s Grant which are not
registered.
The conversion of the Sultan's Grant carried out
by the Heirs of Sultan Deli X into a Surat
Keterangan Haq Memperusahai Tanah (Certificate
of Land Usage Right), is quite easy to identify
because in order to convert the Sultan's Grant,
measurements are also carried out in the field and
making a map showing the location of the land.
Then in year 2017, Datuq Indra Syafri re-measured
CESIT 2020 - International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tourism, and Innovation Technologies
444

as stated in the Land Situation Map dated 19 July
2017 on a 150 Hectare land located in Tanjung
Mulia.
In addition, 13 (thirteen) Certificates of
Ownership which were issued above the area of 150
hectare land which raised objections by the parties,
especially the cultivators who had paid the lease for
the lease rights they had obtained from the heirs of
Sultan Deli X and the experts. The Heirs of Sultan
Deli X itself, which led to the title of the Land Case
which was carried out by the Deputy for the Study
and Handling of Land Disputes and Conflicts at the
National Land Agency (BPN) Drs. Aryanto Sutadi,
MH., M.Sc and the 26 parties directly involved in
the land dispute (including the heirs of the late
Sultan Amaluddin Sani Perkasa Alamsjah). The title
of the case led to a recommendation to the heirs of
Sultan Amaluddin Sani Perkasa Alamsjah (Sultan
Deli X) to file a lawsuit to the Court.
On the basis of the above recommendations, the
heirs of Sultan Amaluddin Sani Perkasa Alamsjah
(Sultan Deli X) filed a lawsuit to the court which in
the end the court rulings on the 2 (two) cases
retained the position of the heirs to parts of the land
with the status of Sultan's Grant. Which is converted
into a Surat Keterangan Haq Memperusahai Tanah
(Certificate of Land Usage Right) with Register No.
90/Dbl.KLD/"60, dated July 22
nd
,1960. This is based
on evidence in court which proves that the Property
Rights Certificate issued on the land has not gone
through valid verification and research procedures
both in terms of documents of the origin of land
rights/land rights basic as well as real conditions in
the field so that it ignores the principle of safety
which causes the Certificate of Ownerships not
having/providing legal certainty. The judges'
decisions have permanent legal force based on the
Inkracht van Gewijsde Certificate issued by the
Medan District Court so that they can be carried out
properly by any party.
GR No. 10 of 1961 jo. GR No. 24 of 1997
concerning Land Registration essentially contains a
negative publication system, this is clearly seen in
the Elucidation of Article 32 paragraph (1) of GR.
24 of 1997 which explains that the certificate is a
strong proof of rights, in the sense that as long as it
cannot be proven otherwise the physical data and
juridical data contained in it must be accepted as
correct data.
This means, later if it turns out that the physical
data and/or juridical data contained in the certificate
are incorrect, based on a judge's decision which has
permanent legal force, the certificate will be
corrected as necessary (Santoso, U., 2015).
Article 32 paragraph (2) GR no. 24 of 1997
explains that:
"In the event that a land parcel has been issued a
certificate legally in the name of the person or legal
entity who acquired the land in good faith and
actually controls it, then other parties who feel that
they have rights to the land can no longer demand
the exercise of that right if within time of 5 (five)
years from the issuance of the certificate did not
submit objections in writing to the certificate holder
and the Head of the Land Office concerned or did
not file a lawsuit to the court regarding land control
or the issuance of the certificate.
Hutagalung, A. S. (1998) as cited in Santoso U.
(2015) stated that the Conception of Article 32
paragraph (2) of GR no. 24 of 1997 is based on the
rechtsverwerking institution or "loss of right to sue"
which is known in customary law. In essence, if a
person owns land, but for a certain period of time
leaves the land untreated and the land is used by
other people in good faith, he can no longer demand
the return of the land from the other person.
Santoso, U. (2015) Underlined that the content of
Article 32 paragraph (2) above, the legal protection
for land rights holders in land registration can be
realized if 3 (three) cumulative requirements are
met, namely :
1. The issue of Certificates of Ownerships is 5
(five) years old or more;
2. The certificate issuance process is based on
good faith;
3. The land is physically controlled by the right
holder or proxy.
Although the land title certificate issued by the
Regency / City Land Office is 5 (five) years old, it
does not mean that the right to sue is lost for people
who feel aggrieved by the issuance of the land title
certificate. This applies unless the elements in
Article 32 paragraph (2) of GR No. 24 of 1997
mentioned above cumulatively (Santoso, U., 2015).
Reviewing the elements as mentioned in Article
32 paragraph (2) GR No. 24 of 1997, especially in
the element of "Land rights are obtained in good
faith", this is not fulfilled because based on the Land
Case Title conducted by the Deputy for the Study
and Handling of Land Disputes and Conflicts of the
National Land Agency (BPN) in 2011, it was found
the legal fact that the issued Property Rights
Certificate is not based on good faith. However, if
you look at the timeline of the status of the land
position, it is clear that the Certificates of Ownership
had been issued since 1972/1973, but this case has
only been sued since 2011 with case register number
26/Pdt.G/2011/PN.Mdn. In other words, the
Heirs of Sultan Deli X’s Legal Position on Land Procurement Object for Medan-Binjai Highway Project
445

Certificate of Ownership has been issued for almost
40 years and if we refer to Article 32 paragraph (1)
GR No. 24 of 1997, the Heirs of the Sultan have lost
their right to sue in court, even though control of the
land is based on bad faith.
4 CONCLUSION
The State as the holder of power can have legal
relationships with objects, such as individual objects
with humans as their owners. The legal relationship
of the State with the land belongs to the category of
objects or land used for public use (res publicae), the
consequences are that public roads etc. are State-
owned for reasons, such as the special legal
relationship between the state and the lands that are
in the category of objects that become the general
public’s wealth, the power that the State exercises to
other lands that used infinitely and the land that is
used for public services.
The land registration activity is further described
in Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997, consists
of land registration activity for the first time (Opzet)
and data maintenance activities. This land
registration activities were done by implementing
simplified principle, safety principle, affordable
principle, cutting-edge principle and open principle.
The land registration used in Indonesia is a negative
system with positive tendency. This means that the
weaknesses of the negative system are reduced in
such ways, so that legal certainty can be achieved.
REFERENCES
Anggoro, T., 2017. Kajian Hukum Masyarakat Hukum
Adat dan HAM dalam Lingkup Negara Kesatuan
Republik Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan,
Vol.36 No.4. Jakarta, Universitas Indonesia.
Bedner, A. and Arizona, Y., Adat in Indonesian Land
Law: A Promise for the Future or a Dead End. The
Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology. United
Kingdom, Informa UK Limited.
Darwin, I.S., et al. 2019. The Role of Customary Land
Ownership in Land-Use Conversion in the Peri-urban
of Bukittinggi, Indonesia.
Erwiningsih, W., 2009. Pelaksanaan Pengaturan Hak
Menguasai Negara atas Tanah Menurut UUD 1945.
Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, Vol 16 Special
Edition. Yogyakarta.
Hartanti, N. D. D., et al. 2020. Reconstruction of the
Complete Systematic Land Registration Regulation
Based on Justice Value. International Journal of Law,
Vol. 6 Issue 3. Semarang, Sultan Agung Islamic
University.
Hasana, D., et. al. 2020. Reconstruction of Land
Registration Policy on Granting Building Use Rights
to a State Owned Enterprise in Central Java.
International Journal of Law, Vol. 6 Issue 2.
Semarang, Sultan Agung Islamic University.
Hasnati., 2013. Peraturan Kekuasaan Politik dan Negara
Hukum dalam Pengaturan Pertanahan. Jurnal Hukum
Republica, Vol. 3 No. 1. Pekanbaru, Universitas
Lancang Kuning.
Ismaya, S., 2011. Pengantar Hukum Agraria. Yogyakarta,
Graha Ilmu.
Makmur., 2019. Analisis Yuridis terhadap Sengketa
Tanah TNI AU cq. Lanud Soewondo yang Dikuasai
oleh Masyarakat Sarirejo (Studi Putusan Mahkamah
Agung Nomor 229/K/PDT/1991. Medan, Universitas
Sumatera Utara
Mbazor, D. N. and Babajide, O. 2019. Impacts of Land
Disputes on Community Development. TeMA –
Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment Vol
12 n. 1. Akure, Federal University of Technology.
Octaleny, E. et al. 2019. Mediation of Land Disputes in
South Sumatera Province. Advances in Economics,
Business and Management Research, volume 122.
Paris, Atlantis Press SARL.
Parlindungan, A. P., 2006. Pendaftaran Tanah di Indonesia
Berdasarkan Peraturan Pemerintah No. 24 Tahun 1997
dilengkapi dengan Peraturan Jabatan Pembuat Akta
Tanah (Peraturan Pemerintah No. 37 Tahun 1998).
Bandung, Penerbit Mandar Maju.
Pratiwi, A.E., et al., 2018. Eksistensi Masyarakat Adat
Kampung Tujuh. Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian
Kewarganegaraan Vol 15 No. 2. Yogyakarta,
Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.
Purnama, T. Y., et. al. 2020. The Status of
Rechtsverwerking in the Land Registration System in
Indonesia. International Journal of Law, Vol. 6 Issue
2. Surakarta, Universitas Sebelas Maret.
Purwitasari, D. E., et. al. 2020. Basic Law Consideration
of the Supreme Court to Decide the Non-Muslim
Heritage Experience with Wasiat Wajibah.
International Journal of Law, Vol. 6 Issue 1.
Surakarta, Universitas Sebelas Maret.
Ridwan, 2019. Land Ownership Reform in Islam. Asian
Social Science, Vol. 15 No. 2. Purwokerto. Shari’a
Faculty of State Institute for Islamic Studies.
Rosdiana, et. al. 2020. Reconstruction of Legal Use of
State’s Land by People as an Embodiment of Welfare
State Based on Justice Value. International Journal of
Law, Vol. 6 Issue 3. Semarang, Sultan Agung Islamic
University.
Rosmidah., 2010. Pengakuan Hukum terhadap Hak Ulayat
Masyarakat Hukum Adat dan Implementasinya.
Inovatif: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum. Jambi, Universitas
Jambi.
Salfutra, R. D., 2019. Hukum Agraria Indonesia.
Yogyakarta, Thafa Media.
CESIT 2020 - International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tourism, and Innovation Technologies
446

Santoso, U., 2015. Pendaftaran dan Peralihan Hak atas
Tanah. 5
th
edition. Jakarta, Kencana Prenada Media
Group.
Setiawan, N. S., et. al. 2020. Reconstruction of the
Regulation of Community Participation in the
Formulation of Regional Regulations in Indonesia
Based on the Value of Justice. International Journal of
Law, Vol. 6 Issue 5. Semarang, Sultan Agung Islamic
University.
Sihombing, I. E., 2018. Land Ownership Based on
National Land Law in Indonesia. Jurnal Notariil, Vol.
3 No. 1. Jakarta. Universitas Trisakti.
Sugiyanto, et. al. 2020. Reconstruction of Law
Enforcement of State Land Possessed by Community
Based on Value of Justice : Study in the Directorate
General of Water Resources of Indonesia.
International Journal of Law, Vol. 6 Issue 3.
Semarang, Sultan Agung Islamic University.
Sukirno., 2008. Perlindungan Hukum Masyarakat Hukum
Adat. Jurnal Hukum Masalah-Masalah Hukum, Vol.
37 No. 2. Semarang, Universitas Diponegoro.
Suwigjo, N. P, et. al. 2020. Reconstruction of Duties and
Authority of Inheritance Certificate-Making Institution
in Indonesia Based on Justice Value. International
Journal of Law, Vol. 6 Issue 2. Semarang, Sultan
Agung Islamic University.
Yubaidi, R. S. 2020. The Future of Land Ownership
Regulation in Indonesia. International Journal of
Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, Vol.
6 Issue 6. Malaysia, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Heirs of Sultan Deli X’s Legal Position on Land Procurement Object for Medan-Binjai Highway Project
447