Legal Literacy - In land disputes, the disputing parties sometimes mistakenly determine the judicial institution authorized to adjudicate the case. Specifically, the parties mistakenly determine whether they will file a case with the general court ("PN") or the state administrative court ("PTUN").

This error can have fatal consequences, namely that the lawsuit filed becomes inadmissible (Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard). This is due to the absence of a basis of authority for the court to examine the case. We can see this phenomenon through a handful of cases.

The first case is found in Decision No. 102/1992/TN/P.TUN.JKT. Here, the panel of judges ruled that the Plaintiff's claim was misaddressed and therefore inadmissible. The reason was that the Plaintiff questioned the limitations of ownership rights over the area of the disputed land. The panel of judges considered that this was a civil case that fell under the jurisdiction of the PN.

The next case is found in Decision No. 59/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Sda. In this case, the panel of judges stated that the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff was misaddressed. The court was not authorized to examine the case because the evaluation of the validity of the governor's decision, which was the object of the dispute, was under the jurisdiction of the PTUN.

What causes the PN and PTUN to reach land conflicts? How do you distinguish the authority of the two to resolve conflicts? This article will answer that question.