Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata ADHAPER Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata
M. Hamidi Masykur
Pengajar pada Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya, Malang
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
CONFLICT OF NORM ANTARA PENCABUTAN HAK DAN PENITIPAN GANTI KERUGIAN DI PENGADILAN DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA PENGADAAN TANAH UNTUK PEMBANGUNAN M. Hamidi Masykur; Harinanto Sugiono
ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata Vol 4, No 1 (2018): Januari – Juni 2018
Publisher : Departemen Hukum Perdata

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (287.813 KB) | DOI: 10.36913/jhaper.v4i1.64

Abstract

Article 18 of Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Rules of Agrarian states that “For the public interest, including the national and State interest also the peoples interest, land rights may be revoked with reasonable compensation in accordance to the procedure provided by law.” The phrase of “revoked” in the article can be widely interpreted both in terms of the procedure as well as the authority. A year after the enactment of Law No. 5 of 1960, Law No. 20 of 1961 concerning Revocation of Land Rights and Properties on Land was enacted with the purpose to implement Article 18 of Law No. 5 of 1960. According to Law No. 20 of 1961, revocation of land rights for the public interests can be exercised through Presidential Decree. It means that there is no opportunity for the lands owner to file an objection against the revocation. On the other side, the enactment of Law No. 2 of 2012 concerning Land Procurement for Development in which Article 40 of the Law provides the custody mechanism for compensation to the District Court when the lands owner refuse to accept the compensation. The procedure has been confi  rmed by Supreme Court, which enacted Supreme Court Regulation No. 3 of 2016 concerning the Procedure for Submitting Objection and Compensation Custody to the District Court in Land Procurement for Public Interests. This situation shows confl  ict of norms between Law No. 20 of 1961 which is never declared not applicable, and then Law No. 2 of 2012 was enacted as new law in the same field of regulation.
CONFLICT OF NORM ANTARA PENCABUTAN HAK DAN PENITIPAN GANTI KERUGIAN DI PENGADILAN DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA PENGADAAN TANAH UNTUK PEMBANGUNAN M. Hamidi Masykur; Harinanto Sugiono
ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata Vol 4, No 1 (2018): Januari – Juni 2018
Publisher : Departemen Hukum Perdata

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36913/jhaper.v4i1.64

Abstract

Article 18 of Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Rules of Agrarian states that “For the public interest, including the national and State interest also the peoples interest, land rights may be revoked with reasonable compensation in accordance to the procedure provided by law.” The phrase of “revoked” in the article can be widely interpreted both in terms of the procedure as well as the authority. A year after the enactment of Law No. 5 of 1960, Law No. 20 of 1961 concerning Revocation of Land Rights and Properties on Land was enacted with the purpose to implement Article 18 of Law No. 5 of 1960. According to Law No. 20 of 1961, revocation of land rights for the public interests can be exercised through Presidential Decree. It means that there is no opportunity for the lands owner to file an objection against the revocation. On the other side, the enactment of Law No. 2 of 2012 concerning Land Procurement for Development in which Article 40 of the Law provides the custody mechanism for compensation to the District Court when the lands owner refuse to accept the compensation. The procedure has been confi  rmed by Supreme Court, which enacted Supreme Court Regulation No. 3 of 2016 concerning the Procedure for Submitting Objection and Compensation Custody to the District Court in Land Procurement for Public Interests. This situation shows confl  ict of norms between Law No. 20 of 1961 which is never declared not applicable, and then Law No. 2 of 2012 was enacted as new law in the same field of regulation.
Co-Authors Harinanto Sugiono