Case Analysis

The agrarian reform program as a program oriented towards restructuring or restructuring land ownership and control has several implementative programs. Among these implementative programs is land redistribution or land distribution. The land to be redistributed is land that exceeds the maximum ownership limit, landabsenteeor land that is located far from the owner's domicile, swaparaja land, and state land. Land for agrarian reform objects or TORA will be distributed to people in need so that land distribution occurs. This redistribution program is basically oriented towards the welfare of the community and individuals, especially farmers who play an important role in providing food. Land that is abandoned by its owners, or located far from the owner's domicile, or exceeds the limit is regulated in such a way by the state through the UUPA so that land utilization can be carried out optimally. The same is true for the relocation of land that is the object of dispute between the Batulawang Village community and the Land Bank. From the government's point of view through the Ministry of ATR/BPN, the land relocation was carried out to protect the community. However, in reality, the land relocation has its own irregularities. The replacement land provided by the government through the Land Bank is very unsuitable for living and managing so that the value of the relocation land is far below their original land. The residents cannot farm on the replacement land so the purpose of the relocation is empty. There is no point in replacing productive land with unproductive land. The Land Bank as a bank that is authorized to carry out land redistribution should provide decent replacement land. Agricultural land that is used by residents as agricultural land should not just be replaced with unsuitable land or even just replacement money. In addition, the former HGU land covering an area of 93 ha has been registered as an LPRA object. This land should not be transferred because the land redistribution program requires the distribution of land and its ownership rights to people in need. The essence of the redistribution program is that the community has ownership rights to land for agrarian reform objects or TORA, where previously they did not even have ownership rights to land. The redistribution program does not recognize the distribution of usage rights because usage rights are not as strong as ownership rights. Ownership rights themselves are full rights and the highest rights compared to other rights such as usage rights and HGU. With ownership rights, residents can manage their own land fully such as transferring the land or placing mortgage rights. Meanwhile, usage rights are only temporary and not as strong as ownership rights. Therefore, ownership rights cannot be transferred into usage rights even if only temporarily, namely 10 years. The granting of usage rights to people who basically have ownership rights is a form of deviation from the spirit of agrarian reform. People who initially had certainty of land ownership will encounter legal uncertainty because the status of their land changes to usage rights. The 10-year time limit is also very potential to be misused. As KPA said, there is no guarantee that after 10 years the usage rights will change to ownership rights. It is very possible that the Land Bank as the holder of ownership rights to the land will transfer the land again. If this happens, then the community's rights to the land will be lost because their status is only as holders of usage rights.

Conclusion

The mandate of the UUPA which aims to create a legal system that regulates land fairly should be implemented by the government in every policy. The government as the authorized authority should be committed to carrying out agrarian reform, especially after the acceleration of the agrarian reform program. Government policies through ministries, the Land Bank, and related institutions should be in agreement in carrying out this program because it will bring welfare and justice to the community.