Company Claims Club de Arjuna Holds Valid Certificates from ATR/BPN

PT HD Arjuna has affirmed that the land on which Club de Arjuna stands in Kedoya Selatan, West Jakarta, is a company asset legally owned based on three Building Use Rights certificates (SHGB). The certificates were issued by the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency (ATR/BPN) with numbers SHGB 3523, 3524, and 3525. To date, the three SHGB certificates remain valid and have never been revoked through a court ruling. PT HD Arjuna’s legal representative, Helmi Suhardie, stated that the company acquired the land through a sale and purchase transaction with PT Supra Pramesti Sakti in 2008. “The plot of land along with the Club de Arjuna building and all facilities standing on it are the legal property of PT HD Arjuna,” Helmi said in a written statement on Thursday (2/7/2026). According to Helmi, all of the company’s business activities are conducted on land with legality in accordance with applicable land regulations. He also stressed that to date, there is no civil court ruling requiring PT HD Arjuna to pay compensation to any party regarding the land dispute. Helmi claimed that the ownership claim submitted by a party acting on behalf of heirs using the basis of Girik C351 lacks an adequate land administration basis. He stated that Girik C351 is not recorded in the Land Register Book of Kedoya Selatan Sub-district. “In the sub-district administration book, the girik number is recorded in red ink, different from the recording of other giriks which use black ink,” he explained. PT HD Arjuna also referred to facts revealed in criminal trials as per West Jakarta District Court Decision Number 680/Pid.B/2024/PN Jkt.Brt and Number 681/Pid.B/2024/PN Jkt.Brt, which were later upheld by Supreme Court Decision Number 1778 K/Pid/2025 and Number 1779 K/Pid/2025. Helmi said that in the case, H. Sulardi, the legal representative of the party claiming to be the heirs, and Achmad Mawardi, the former Head of Kedoya Selatan Sub-district, were found to have committed acts related to the disputed documents. However, the panel of judges released the defendants from legal charges on the grounds that the case was a civil matter. He also conveyed that during the trial, the former sub-district head provided testimony regarding the issuance of a letter that did not correspond to the actual conditions. Furthermore, Helmi explained that the trial revealed a discrepancy in the land area stated in the documents used as the basis for the claim. Initial data showed an area of approximately 1,200 square metres, but it later changed to around 20,000 square metres. He added that the panel of judges also found discrepancies in the Deed of Conditional Sale and Purchase Agreement (PPJB), including the sale and purchase transaction and the land measurement process used as the basis for the claim. “Therefore, regarding the parties currently at the Club de Arjuna location claiming to be heirs or linked to the mass organisation GRIB Jaya, the company leaves the resolution to law enforcement officials and the applicable legal mechanisms,” he explained. PT HD Arjuna continues to run its business activities by applying the principles of Good Corporate Governance (GCG). To support operations, the company uses the services of a civil outsourcing company in the fields of building and machinery maintenance, field maintenance, cleaning, and security. Helmi also denied rumours suggesting that Club de Arjuna’s operations receive protection from certain institutions. PT HD Arjuna hopes that all parties will respect the legal process and not take unilateral actions that could disrupt business activities or create unrest in the community. “The company does not use protection from any institution, including the TNI or Kopassus. All operational activities are carried out professionally in accordance with applicable regulations,” he concluded.