Mechanisms for Preventing and Resolving Agrarian Disputes through the Strengthening of the Land Administration System

Aslan Noor; Nisa Putri Mulyani; Regina Zetia; Maudy Erdriana Putri; Tedja Arum Kusumah

doi:10.55681/jige.v7i3.6885

Authors

Aslan Noor Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pasundan, Bandung, Indonesia
Nisa Putri Mulyani Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pasundan, Bandung, Indonesia
Regina Zetia Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pasundan, Bandung, Indonesia
Maudy Erdriana Putri Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pasundan, Bandung, Indonesia
Tedja Arum Kusumah Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pasundan, Bandung, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55681/jige.v7i3.6885

Keywords:

Agrarian Disputes, Digital Land Administration, Land Administration, Legal Certainty, Dispute Prevention

Abstract

Agrarian disputes in Indonesia remain a fundamental issue because they are directly related to legal certainty, protection of land rights, and the governance of land administration. This study aims to analyze mechanisms for preventing and resolving agrarian disputes through the strengthening of the land administration system. This study uses normative legal research with descriptive analytical specifications and a normative juridical approach. The data consist of secondary data as the main data and primary data as supporting data. Secondary data were obtained through library research on legislation, legal doctrines, journal articles, and other relevant legal materials. Primary data were obtained through limited observation and interviews at land administration institutions. The data were analyzed using a juridical qualitative method. The results show that agrarian disputes are largely triggered by weaknesses in land administration, particularly the inconsistency between physical and juridical data, overlapping land certificates, weak validation of land title documents, suboptimal digitalization of land records, and the inconsistent application of the principle of contradictoire delimitatie. This study concludes that the prevention of agrarian disputes should be directed toward strengthening land administration that is accurate, transparent, integrated, digital, and accountable. Such strengthening can be carried out through the digitalization of land records, the updating of cadastral maps, the integration of land databases, strict document validation, and the establishment of a fast and measurable administrative correction mechanism.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bennett, R., Wallace, J., & Williamson, I. (2008). Organising land information for sustainable land administration. Land Use Policy, 25(1), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.03.006

Borras, S. M., Jr., & Franco, J. C. (2012). Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Agrarian Change, 12(1), 34–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2011.00339.x

Cotula, L. (2012). The international political economy of the global land rush: A critical appraisal of trends, scale, geography and drivers. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 649–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.674940

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Deininger, K., & Feder, G. (2009). Land registration, governance, and development: Evidence and implications for policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 24(2), 233–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkp007

Feder, G., & Nishio, A. (1998). The benefits of land registration and titling: Economic and social perspectives. Land Use Policy, 15(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(97)00039-2

Friedman, L. M. (1975). The legal system: A social science perspective. Russell Sage Foundation.

Graglia, J. M., & Mellon, C. (2018). Blockchain and property in 2018: At the end of the beginning. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 12(1–2), 90–116. https://doi.org/10.1162/inov_a_00270

Ho, P., & Spoor, M. (2006). Whose land? The political economy of land titling in transitional economies. Land Use Policy, 23(4), 580–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.05.007

Ibrahim, J. (2006). Teori dan metodologi penelitian hukum normatif. Bayumedia Publishing.

Lemieux, V. L. (2016). Trusting records: Is blockchain technology the answer? Records Management Journal, 26(2), 110–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-12-2015-0042

Lemmen, C., Van Oosterom, P., & Bennett, R. (2015). The Land Administration Domain Model. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 4(4), 2022–2043. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi4042022

Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian hukum (Edisi revisi). Kencana.

McCarthy, J. F., Vel, J. A. C., & Afiff, S. (2012). Trajectories of land acquisition and enclosure: Development schemes, virtual land grabs, and green acquisitions in Indonesia’s Outer Islands. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2), 521–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.671768

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Payne, G., Durand-Lasserve, A., & Rakodi, C. (2009). The limits of land titling and home ownership. Environment and Urbanization, 21(2), 443–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247809344364

Peluso, N. L., & Lund, C. (2011). New frontiers of land control: Introduction. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 667–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.607692

Radbruch, G. (2006). Statutory lawlessness and supra-statutory law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqi041

Sikor, T., & Lund, C. (2009). Access and property: A question of power and authority. Development and Change, 40(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01503.x

Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2019). Penelitian hukum normatif: Suatu tinjauan singkat. Rajawali Pers.