<![CDATA[ABSTRAK Private property atau kepemilikan pribadi atas sumber daya alam, salah satunya yakni berinvestasi dalam jual beli tanah. Pada praktiknya sering terjadi sengketa mengenai subjek dan objek jual beli tanah serta tata cara jual beli tanah, seperti pada putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3500 K/PDT/2018, yang mana terjadi sengketa dua bidang tanah seluas 3.055 Ha antara ahli waris keluarga Sunarti (Tergugat) dan ahli waris keluarga Ichwanuddin Bin Dahlan (Penggugat), yang mana Penggugat mengajukan gugatan ke Pengadilan Negeri Kendal menyatakan menolak provisi Para Penggugat dan mengabulkan gugatan Para Penggugat untuk sebagian. Para Tergugat mengalami kekalahan atas putusan Pengadilan Negeri Kendal dan Pengadilan Tinggi Semarang, akhirnya mengajukan permohonan kasasi ke Mahkamah Agung. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan metode yuridis normatif yang dilakukan dengan cara meneliti bahan pustaka atau bahan sekunder belaka. Penelitian termasuk penelitian normatif dengan spesifikasi penelitian bersifat deskriptif analitis yang menjelaskan gambaran analisis kasus sengketa tanah milik Muarif Bin Ngarip dan selanjutnya dianalisis secara yuridis kualiatif.Dari hasil penelitian disimpulkan pertimbangan hakim dalam putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3500 K/PDT/2018 bahwa akta pengikatan jual beli tanah dianggap sebagai akta jual beli tanah berdasarkan UUPA dan KUHPerdata adalah tidak tepat. Hal ini melanggar Pasal 1869 dan Pasal 1871 KUHPerdata karena tidak terdapatnya Akta Jual Beli Nomor 52 tanggal 28 Maret 1999 dan Akta Jual Beli Nomor 53 tanggal 28 Maret 1991 yang mana ketidaksesuaian antara judul dan isi akta. Menurut Pasal 19 UUPA, objek yang disengketakan bukan milik dari Para Termohon Kasasi/Para Penggugat, yang mengakibatkan dinyatakan batal demi hukum. Pertimbangan hukum dalam putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3500 K/PDT/2018 berkaitan dengan legal standing (kedudukan hukum) para pihak adalah keliru. Berdasarkan pembuktian dan alat bukti a quo. Pihak Penggugat terbukti belum berstatus sebagai pemilik hak atas tanah dan tidak memiliki legal standing untuk mengajukan gugatan ke pengadilan. Kata kunci: hukum tanah; pengadilan; putusan hakim; sengketa tanah. ABSTRACT Private property or private ownership of natural resources, such as investing in the practice of buying and selling land. In the practice of buying and selling land there are often disputes both regarding the subject and object of buying and selling land, and about the procedure for buying and selling land as in the Supreme Court decision No. 3500 K / PDT / 2018, where there is a dispute of two plots of land covering an area of 3,055 Ha between the heirs of the Sunarti family (Defendant) and the heirs of the Ichwanuddin Bin Dahlan family (Plaintiff), which the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Kendal District Court stating that it rejected the Plaintiffs' provision and granted the Plaintiffs' lawsuit for Part. The Defendants who suffered defeat to the ruling of the Kendal District Court and the Semarang High Court, finally submitted the reason for the cassation application to the Supreme Court. This research uses normative juridical method approaches that are carried out by researching library materials or mere secondary materials. This research includes normative research with analytical descriptive research specifications that explain the picture of land dispute case analysis belonging to Muarif Bin Ngarip.From the results of the research, it was concluded that the judge's consideration in the Supreme Court's decision Number 3500 K/PDT/2018 that the Binding Deed of Sale and Purchase of Land is considered a Deed of Sale and Purchase of Land based on the Basic Agrarian Law and the Civil Code is incorrect. This violates Article 1869 and Article 1871 of the Civil Code because there is no Deed of Sale and Purchase Number 52 dated March 28, 1999 and Deed of Sale and Purchase Number 53 dated March 28, 1991 which are incompatible between the title and content of the deed. According to the Article 19 Basic Agrarian Law, the object in dispute does not belong to the Cassation Respondents/Plaintiffs, which results in being declared null and void. The legal considerations in the Supreme Court's decision Number 3500 K/PDT/2018 regarding the legal standing of the parties are wrong. Based on the evidence and the a quo evidence. It is proven that the Plaintiff does not have the status as the owner of land rights and does not have the legal standing to file a lawsuit in court.Keywords: law of the land; court; judge’s decision; land disputes.]]>
