Juridical Analysis of Rejection of Cancellation of the Deed of Sharing Collective Rights Based on Ruling Number:803K/AG/2017

Abstract

The aim of this research is to analyze concept and regulation of sharing of joint rights in positive law and to analyze the judge's considerations in refusing to cancel the deed of sharing of joint rights based on Decision Number:803k/Aug/2017. This type of research is normative research. The problem is how the concept and regulation of the distribution of joint rights in positive law and how the judge considers the rejection of the cancellation of the deed of distribution of joint rights based on Decision Number:803k/Aug/2017. the results of this research are PemSharing of joint rights is a legal action carried out by holders of joint rights to land so that it becomes the right of each of the joint rights based on the Deed of Sharing of Joint Rights. Arrangements for the distribution of joint rights are contained in various regulations, namely Porder Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration Article 31 paragraphs 4 and 5, and Article 51 paragraph 1, Regulation of the Minister of State for Agrarian Affairs/Head of the National Land Agency Number 3 of 1997 concerning Provisions for Implementing Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration. Article 94 paragraph 2, article 95, article 96, article 105 article 111 paragraph 4, article 136 paragraphs 1 and 2, and Explanation PRegulation of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Number 18 of 2021 concerning Management Rights, Land Rights, Flats and Land Registration in Article 67 paragraph 1. and dIt can be seen from the judge's various considerations that the reason for filing this cassation is actually the cancellation of the deed of sharing of joint rights made by the defendants legally in the PPAT and in accordance with existing provisions. The other reasons in this cassation cannot be justified because they are based on reality and no errors were found so they cannot be considered in this cassation decision in accordance with the provisions in Law Number 14 of 1985 concerning the Supreme Court Article 30.