Tanah Abang Land Dispute: KPA Questions Validity of 1923 Eigendom Document
JAKARTA - The General Secretary of the Consortium for Agrarian Reform (KPA), Dewi Kartika, has questioned the validity of the issuance of the Land Management Right (HPL) claimed by PT Kereta Api Indonesia (Persero) or KAI in the land dispute in the Tanah Abang area, Central Jakarta.
According to Dewi, the emergence of claims from other parties based on the 1923 Eigendom Verponding document indicates the need for further investigation into the land’s history.
“Or perhaps there was indeed a procedural error, a violation of procedure so that it is not clear and clean, they did not properly check whether the land for which the HPL was issued to PT KAI was truly free of any rights,” Dewi told Kompas.com on Tuesday (14/04/2026).
The Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) provides a 20-year deadline from its enactment in 1960. This means all Western rights should have been converted by 1980 at the latest. If not, those rights can be considered extinguished, and the land reverts to state land.
“So what happened after the 20-year deadline in 1980? It means it actually reverts to state land,” Dewi said.
From this situation, Dewi suggested the possibility that the HPL was granted to PT KAI because the land was deemed state land. However, she also left open the possibility of issues in the administrative process.
Dewi emphasised that the land’s history and the process of issuing rights can only be confirmed through investigation by the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency (ATR/BPN).
She mentioned that it needs to be traced whether the heirs ever applied for conversion of the Eigendom right to Ownership Right, or whether it was never done.
She noted two possibilities that could explain the situation. First, negligence by the owner or heirs in not processing the right conversion. Second, obstacles in the application process to the land authorities.
Dewi added that if the land was once managed by other parties through cooperation with PT KAI, this could also indicate a lack of active control by the party claiming as heirs.
“It could be that if there was indeed development handed over by PT KAI to a third party partnering on PT KAI’s HPL, then those claiming as heirs might have also neglected the land,” she said.
Furthermore, Dewi stated that this dispute has now entered the legal realm, so all claims will be tested through the court process.
According to her, the court will examine various aspects, from the validity of the heirs, reasons for not converting, to the legality of issuing the HPL.
Meanwhile, the land ownership claim in Tanah Abang was previously submitted by the legal team of the United Indonesian People’s Movement (GRIB) Jaya, which claims a basis in the 1923 Eigendom Verponding.
However, several experts assess that this document is no longer recognised as primary proof of ownership after the enactment of the UUPA, but only as an administrative reference in the right conversion process.