<![CDATA[Land grabbing is a legal issue related to legal certainty, the protection of land rights, and criminal law enforcement. This study aims to analyze judges’ considerations in enforcing criminal law against land grabbing and the disparity in the judgments of the Medan District Court in Decision No. 1/Pid.B/2018/PN Mdn and Decision No. 795/Pid.B/2016/PN Mdn. This study employs a normative juridical method with a descriptive-analytical approach, using statutory, conceptual, analytical, and case approaches. Legal materials were obtained through library research and analyzed qualitatively. The results show that the differences in the judges’ considerations primarily concern the fulfillment of the elements of Article 385 paragraph (4) of the Indonesian Criminal Code and the proof of land rights. In Decision No. 1/Pid.B/2018/PN Mdn, ownership of the land remained disputed because the parties did not possess sufficiently strong evidence of ownership. Consequently, the defendants were released from all legal prosecution, while the determination of land ownership was considered to require prior resolution through civil proceedings. In contrast, in Decision No. 795/Pid.B/2016/PN Mdn, the land rights were established through Certificate of Ownership No. 2409 registered in the name of the victim-witness, whereas the defendant had no valid legal title and was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment. Therefore, the difference between the judgments does not merely indicate inconsistency in sentencing, but is influenced by differences in the legal facts, fulfillment of the elements of the offense, and evidentiary strength concerning land ownership in each case.]]>
