Minister Confirms Tanah Abang Land Belongs to KAI
JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - The Minister of Housing and Settlement Areas (PKP) Maruarar Sirait has emphasised that the land in Tanah Abang to be used for building homes for low-income communities (MBR) belongs to PT Kereta Api Indonesia (Persero) or KAI.
She made this assertion after meeting with the Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/Head of the National Land Agency (ATR/BPN) Nusron Wahid at the Ministry of ATR/BPN office in South Jakarta on Thursday (16/04/2026).
Previously, claims of ownership over the Tanah Abang land emerged after the legal team of the United Indonesian People’s Movement (GRIB) Jaya stated they possessed evidence in the form of Eigendom Verponding number 946 from 1923 in the name of Iljas Radjo Mentari.
However, several experts assess that such documents are no longer recognised as primary proof of ownership following the enactment of the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) of 1960, serving only as administrative indicators in the conversion process.
The Secretary General of the Consortium for Agrarian Reform (KPA), Dewi Kartika, views the Tanah Abang land dispute based on the 1923 Eigendom Verponding document as raising significant questions about the legal status of the land.
According to Dewi, under the UUPA, all rights to colonial inheritance land, including Eigendom, should have been converted into ownership rights after Indonesia’s independence.
“Why until 2026 have the heirs not carried out the conversion process as stipulated by the Basic Agrarian Law? Why is it still in the form of Eigendom?” Dewi told Kompas.com on Tuesday (14/04/2026).
Dewi explained that the UUPA provided a 20-year period from its enactment on 24 September 1960 for conversion. Thus, all Western rights, including Eigendom, should have been adjusted by no later than 1980.
If not converted within that timeframe, she continued, the land has the potential to revert to state land.
“So what happens after the 20-year limit in 1980 passes? It means it actually reverts to state land,” Dewi said.
In this case, Dewi also highlighted the status of the Land Management Rights (HPL) claimed by KAI.
She questioned whether the issuance of the HPL followed proper procedures and ensured no overlap with prior rights.
“Or perhaps there was a procedural error, a violation of procedure, so it’s not clear and clean; they didn’t properly check if the land for which HPL was issued to PT KAI was truly unencumbered by any rights,” Dewi stated.