The Administrative Court is an institution that provides justice by enforcing the law in the administrative sector. The Administrative Court encompasses some elements, similar to other courts (Ridwan, 2019). Rueschemeyer stated that the judicial profession is understood as a service work that determines a systematic set of knowledge on the problems that are relevant to the main values in society (Margono, 2019).

The job of a judge is not merely a routine practical job, but it is also scientific. Thus, this job demands judges to dive into legal studies to strengthen their considerations as a basis for their decisions (Mertokusumo & Pitlo, 2020). In a decision, considerations include a consideration of the case's issue and legal considerations (Soetami, 1994). Considerations or reasons in making a decision have a crucial role in implementing a judge's task, i.e., making or deciding a verdict that leads to legal impacts on other parties. When giving a verdict, judges make efforts so that their decision may be accepted by society. Judges' considerations in Decision No. 32/G/2023/PTUN.SBY in resolving the dispute of land tenure certificate overlapping are as follows:

a. Judges' Considerations of Their Authority in Adjudicating a Trial

Regarding the exception filed by Defendant and Defendant II Intervention on the authority to adjudicate a trial, the Judge Assembly made a decision based on these considerations:

The Judge Assembly considered Article 1 number 9 of Law No. 51 of 2009 on the second amendment of Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Justice, which regulates:

“The State Administrative Decision is a written decision issued by a state administrative agency or official which contains state administrative legal actions based on the applicable legal regulations, that is concrete, individual, final, and leads to legal impacts for the individual or civil law agency.”

The judge took the Article into consideration because the decision of a state administrative official, in this case, the head of the Land Agency, has legal consequences for the holders of the decision, namely the certificate of land ownership rights. The Land Ownership Certificates that became the object of dispute in the issue of Land Ownership Certificate overlapping of two plots of land (a quo) are:

These two certificates were written determinations issued by the Defendant as a State Administrative Official as a form of governmental affair implementation in the land sector based on his authority as written in the Governmental Regulation No. 24 of 1997 on Land Registration (GR on Land Registration) which has concrete and individual characteristics. This is because these two certificates a quo do not have general characteristics. On the contrary, they were given to certain a certain person; as it was given to Defendant II Intervention. It is final as it no longer needs an agreement from other superiors or institutions.

The a quo dispute happened to Plaintiff against the Batu City Land Agency (Defendant) as a result of the issuing of two Land Ownership Certificates that became the a quo dispute object. It has also fulfilled the element of state administrative dispute based on Article 1 number 10 of Law No. 51 of 2009, namely a person or civil law agency with a state administrative agency or official.

The Judge Assembly considered Article 54 clause (1) of Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court which regulates:

“A lawsuit of state administrative dispute is filed to the court that is authorized in its legal area, which encompasses the Defendant’s location of residence”.

The a quo dispute object was issued by the Head of the Batu City Land Agency whose work area is in Batu City, East Java Province. Then, the legal area of the Surabaya City State Administrative Court encompasses all Regencies and Cities in East Java Province.

Therefore, based on the description of the legal considerations above, the exception argument of Defendant and Defendant II Intervention does not have legal bases. Thus, it must be deemed unacceptable. Apart from that, the Court both absolutely and relatively concludes that the Surabaya City State Administrative Court has the authority to examine and adjudicate the a quo case.

b. Judicial Considerations on Deadlines

The Judge Assembly considered that after examining the dispute object in this case, it was known that the position of the Plaintiff was as a party whose name was not referred to in the dispute object. In this case, the party that was directly referred to in the dispute object was I Made Artawan as Defendant II Intervention. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was named Sri Wulandari. Concerning this, the Judge Assembly uses the Supreme Court’s Circulation Letter No. 3 of 2015 on the Formulation of the State Administrative Room, number 1 on Deadlines of Filing a Lawsuit as a basis. This stipulation states:

“A deadline of 90 (ninety days) to file a lawsuit of the third party that was not referred to by the Decision of the State Administrative Court as stipulated in Article 55 of the Law on the State Administrative Court. It is initially counted since the aforementioned person feels that his/her interest was harmed by the Decision of the State Administrative Court was changed to be counted since the aforementioned person initially knows that the Decision of the State Administrative Court has harmed his/her interest”.

Concerning the stipulations on the deadline, what must priorly be known is the accurate truth on when the Plaintiff knew that the Decision Letter that became the dispute object in an a quo case harmed her interest. In this case, Plaintiff has already attended an invitation from Defendant on February 3rd, 2023 to carry out a mediation and discuss the a quo issue that became the dispute object in that case. In that meeting between Plaintiff and Defendant, Defendant described the Legal Procedures on the timeline of the issuing of the Land Ownership Certificate No. 5119/Junrejo and Land Ownership Certificate No. 5120/Junrejo. Thus, Defendant has shown the two land tenure certificates that became an a quo dispute object to Plaintiff and her legal authority. Therefore, the Court opines that the Plaintiff has clearly and certainly known of the existence of these two Land Ownership Certificates that became the disputed object in an a quo case on February 3rd, 2023 when the Plaintiff and her legal authority attended an invitation from the Defendant.

The Judge Assembly considered administrative laws, objections, and appeals as regulated in Article 75, Article 76, Article 77, and Article 78 of Law No. 30 of 2014 on State Administration which was amended into the Regulation of the Supreme Court No. 6 of 2018 on the Guidelines to Resolving State Administrative Disputes After Undergoing Administrative Efforts on the lawsuit filing procedures in the State Administrative Court. Regulation of the Supreme Court No. 6 of 2018 provides a condition that the court examines, determines, and resolves lawsuits on governmental administrative disputes after undergoing administrative efforts.

The Judge Assembly considered that by seeing the aforementioned legal facts and linking them to Article 55 of Law No. 5 of 1986; Article 5 clause (1) of the Regulation of the Supreme Court No. 6 of 2018; and Article 77 Law No. 30 of 2014, the Plaintiff only clearly and certainly knew of the dispute object on February 3rd, 2023 and filed an objection on February 7th, 2023. She did not obtain a response from the Defendant. Thus, it was considered that since March 1st, 2023, the Plaintiff can file a lawsuit to the State Administrative Court. Then, the Court suggested that the date of March 1st, 2023 was the time when the lawsuit filing deadline was first counted. Then, the lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiff on March 28th, 2023 through the State Administrative Court of Surabaya City. Therefore, the Judge Assembly concluded that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit did not pass the deadline of 90 (ninety days) to file a lawsuit. The Plaintiff's lawsuit has fulfilled the formal aspect of the lawsuit concerning the deadline for filing a lawsuit in the State Administrative Court of Surabaya City. Then, the exception of Defendant and Defendant II Intervention in the lawsuit of Plaintiff has passed the deadline and is declared unaccepted.

c. Judicial Considerations of the Main Case

The Judge Assembly stated that the Defendant’s authority in issuing the a quo dispute object is regulated in stipulations of Article 5 and Article 4 clause (1) of the GR on Land Registration as well as Article 10 clause (1) letter a and b and Article 17 clause (1) of the Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian and Spatial Affairs/Head of the National Land Agency No. 16 of 2022. Apart from that, there was a consideration of the land location where the a quo dispute object was issued. This land was located in Junrejo Village, Junrejo District, Batu City. Thus, in terms of its jurisdiction, it is part of the Defendant’s work area as the Head of the Batu City Land Agency. Thus, based on the legal considerations that the Court has described, it is stated that the Defendant has the authority to issue these two Land Ownership Certificates as the a quo dispute object.

The procedural and substantial aspects in the issuing of the a quo object must be according to the applicable legal regulations and the general principle of good governance. In this case, the Defendant was proven to have never made an announcement in the Junrejo Village Office on the location of where these aforementioned land plots were. This was proven from the fact that there was no information that showed that the Defendant has truly gave that announcement. Apart from that, there was no proof of delivery or receipt that was attached to that evidence. Then, in the Legal Procedures of Physical Data and Juridical Data Announcement Validation, it was shown that the announcement of Physical Data and Juridical Data examination results was only carried out in the Batu City Land Agency. Thus, it did not fulfill Article 26 of the GR on Land Registration.

According to the judges, this announcement was crucial to be carried out so that the issuing process of the a quo dispute object may be known by the public. This is according to the stipulations in Article 2 clause (1) of the GR on Land Registration. This Article regulates that land registration is carried out based on simple, safe, affordable, up-to-date, and transparent principles. To fulfill the transparent principle, an announcement must holistically be made by the Defendant, considering that this announcement has the function of giving an opportunity to the stakeholders to file an objection as a manifestation of legal certainty and legal protection for the rights holder of a land plot. This is according to the aim of land registration regulated in Article 3 letter a of the GR on Land Registration.

Based on the legal facts, it was known that the a quo dispute object that was originally issued under the name of Mulyohadi was shifted to I Made Artawan based on the Deed of Sales and Purchase No. 43/2021 and Deed of Sales and Purchase No. 44/2021. Based on this evidence, it was known that the issuing of the two Deeds of Sales and Purchase was carried out when Mulyohadi died. According to the Court, this Attorney's Deed of Power to Sell must be ignored as the party that gave the Power has died. Then, no available evidence supported the claim that the heirs of Mulyohadi have given approval and continued the granting of sales to Defendant II Intervention. Therefore, the right transfer process of these two Land Ownership Certificates of the a quo dispute object from Mulyohadi to Defendant II Intervention carried out by Defendant contains legal defects.

The Judge Assembly considered that from the Proof of Application for Rights Transfer over the Land Ownership Certificates No. 05119 (vide Evidence T-10), there was an Agricultural Land Ownership Statement Letter made by Defendant II Intervention which stated that this land was currently used for agriculture. Meanwhile, according to information from a witness named Solikin and a local examination by the Judge Assembly, it was found that the aforementioned land functioned as a plantation for orange plants. Therefore, there was a discrepancy in data between the Agricultural Land Ownership Statement Letter made by Defendant II Intervention and the data in the field.

Based on the description of these legal considerations above, it was proven that Defendant's actions in issuing the a quo dispute object under the name of Defendant II Intervention substantially contained a juridical defect due to Defendant's lack of thoroughness in processing physical data and juridical data. Thus, it issued the a quo dispute object that is not based on accurate data. Therefore, Defendant's actions have violated Article 2 and Article 3 letter a of the GR on Land Registration, as Defendant issued the a quo dispute object without paying attention to the principles of registration, especially the safety and up-to-date principles.

Therefore, based on the considerations related to the procedures and substances that were described above, the court regards that the argument of Defendant and Defendant II Intervention must be ignored based on Article 66 clause (1) of Law on Governmental Administration which states that a decision may only be revoked in case of the presence of a defect, either in its authority, procedural, and/or substantial aspects.

Legal consequences are impacts that occur due to a legal relationship, i.e., rights and obligations (Sulaiman, 2019). They are impacts that occur in the event of a decision or a verdict issued that brings disadvantages to a person or a civil law agency (Marpi, 2020). In line with the above definition, the State Administrative Court of Surabaya City's Decision No. 32/G/2023/PTUN.SBY contains the following points:

a. Stating that the exception of Defendant and Defendant II Intervention is by all means rejected.

b. Fully granting the lawsuit of the Plaintiff.

c. Stating the rejection of the State Administrative Court Decision Letters issued by the Defendant which are:

d. Obliging the Defendant to revoke the following State Administrative Court Decision Letters:

e. Punishing Defendant and Defendant II Intervention to pay for the fees in the amount of Rp. 6,510,000.- (six million five hundred thousand rupiahs) in a joint manner.

Based on the Decision of the State Administrative Court of Surabaya City, the legal consequences are:

a. For the Plaintiff, there is legal certainty over the two Land Ownership Certificates of the land plots she owns, namely:

The rights over land owned by the Plaintiff were a shifting of rights through inheritance because the right holder has died. The legal basis which determines that an ownership right may be inherited is implicitly written in Article 20 of the Law on Basic Agrarian Principles (Santoso, 2011). Legal certainty demands the law to strictly be implemented and enforced in all concrete events. There must not be any deviations. The law must still be enforced even if the sky falls. Legal certainty gives justifiable protection from the arbitrary actions of other parties. This also relates to the efforts to uphold order in society.

b. For the Defendant, in this case, the State Administration Official/Head of the Batu City Land Agency, he must revoke the aforementioned Decision Letters, i.e., Land Ownership Certificate No. 05119/ and Land Ownership Certificate No. 05120 under the name of I Made Artawan.

The Defendant must revoke the Decision that was issued because the court deemed that the Decision Letters of State Administration in the form of two Land Ownership Certificates issued by the Defendant were invalid. Judges decided the revocation of these State Administrative Decision legal products as they were deemed to contain administrative and/or juridical defects. It is a manifestation of the judicial decision implementation that has absolute legal power as regulated in Article 29 clause (1) and Article 30 clause (3) of the Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian and Spatial Affairs/Head of the National Land Agency No. 21 of 2020 on the Handling and Resolution of Land Cases. Apart from that, it is based on Article 35 of that Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian and Spatial Affairs/Head of the National Land Agency which explains the meaning of administrative and/or juridical defect as a cause for State Administrative Decision revocation in a more detailed manner.

Based on these stipulations, the revocation of these State Administrative Decision legal products (certificates that became the a quo dispute object was deemed to have administrative and/or juridical defects due to errors in the processes/procedures in issuing the rights for land, land registration, and the process of land registration data maintenance; an overlapping happened; as well as errors in the process of granting permission to transfer rights.

Apart from that, Defendant must pay part of the case fees that are burdened to him jointly by the Defendant and Defendant II Intervention. Jointly means that the fees must jointly be paid by the Defendant and Defendant II Intervention.

c. Defendant II Intervention must lose his rights over two plots of land because the two certificates he owned that were issued by the State Administration Official/Head of the Batu City Land Agency were revoked by the State Administrative Court of Surabaya City. Apart from that, Defendant II Intervention must pay part of the case fees that are burdened to him.