English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Overlapping and problems arise because of the issuance of the certificate of management rights Number 91/Sungai Selincah in the name of PT Pelindo II.  That HPL certificate overlaps HGB certificates owned by PT RAI, HGB certificate Number 100/Sei Selincah and HGB certificate Number 101/Desa Sei Selincah. BPN issued PT Pelindo II's HPL certificate on January 6, 2012. With the issuance of the HPL certificate of PT Pelindo II, which overlaps HGBs of PT RAI, BPN was unable to extend PT RAI's HGB certificate for those two plots of land previously owned by PT RAI, prompting PT RAI to file a lawsuit in court. The research employs a normative juridical research methodology that includes a statutory analysis, a case study, and a conceptual analysis. Findings of the research show that the issuance of PT Pelindo II's HPL certificate was following applicable regulations (UUPA, UUCK, PP 24/1997, and PP 18/2021), and no provisions were violated. However, PT Pelindo II's HPL Certificate that overlaps the PT RAI's HGB has administrative defects. Regarding the judge's decisions and legal considerations, the District and High Court's was not following the provisions of Article 27 paragraph (1) PP 40/1996, which was still applicable at that time. The Cassation and Judicial Review's decisions in Supreme Court demonstrate the cancellation of the District and High Court's decision due to the judge's negligence in applying the law as specified in the applicable laws and regulations. BAHASA INDONESIA ABSTRACT:  Terdapatnya tumpang tindih dan permasalahan atas penerbitan sertifikat Hak Pengelolaan Nomor 91/Sungai Selincah seluas 23.500 m² milik PT Pelindo II yang mana sertifikat HPL tersebut bersinggungan dan tumpang tindih dengan sertifikat HGB Nomor 100/Sei Selincah dan sertifikat HGB Nomor 101/Desa Sei Selincah milik PT RAI. Atas terbitnya sertifikat HPL PT Pelindo II di atas HGB PT RAI tersebut BPN tidak bisa menerbitkan perpanjangan sertifikat HGB PT RAI atas kedua bidang tanah tersebut yang pada akhirnya mendorong PT RAI untuk mengajukan gugatan ke pengadilan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil penelitian mengenai penerbitan HPL atas nama PT Pelindo II yang diterbitkan di atas tanah yang sudah terdapat sertifikat HGB atas nama PT RAI ditinjau dari UUPA, UUCK, PP 24/1997, dan PP 18/2021 menunjukkan telah sesuai dengan ketentuan yang berlaku dan tidak ada ketentuan yang dilanggar. Namun demikian, penerbitan Sertifikat HPL PT Pelindo II di atas HGB PT RAI tersebut memiliki cacat administratif. Selanjutnya mengenai amar dan pertimbangan hukum hakim dalam putusan Pengadilan Negeri tingkat pertama dan tingkat banding di Pengadilan Tinggi tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 27 ayat (1) PP 40/1996 yang masih berlaku saat itu. Pada putusan tingkat kasasi dan peninjauan kembali di Mahkamah Agung menunjukkan adanya pembatalan atas putusan putusan Pengadilan Negeri tingkat pertama dan tingkat banding di Pengadilan Tinggi dikarenakan adanya kekhilafan hakim dalam menerapkan hukum sebagaimana ketentuan peraturan-perundangan.

notary journal

ANALISIS YURIDIS TUMPANG TINDIH HPL PELINDO II YANG TERBIT DI ATAS HGB PT RAI (STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN PENINJAUAN KEMBALI NOMOR: 392PK/PDT/2020) [JURIDICAL ANALYSIS OF THE OVERLAPPING RIGHT TO MANAGE ISSUED ON TOP OF PT RESOURCES ALAM INDONESIA'S RIGHT TO BUILD (CASE STUDY ON SUPREME COURT DECISION NO 392 PK/PDT/2020)]