DECISIONS · SHM NO. 5/LEMO
From The Pit Nio to Chairil, then Sumita Chandra.
One parcel, several lines of litigation. This page places Decision 596, Vera’s claim, the civil and administrative judgments, BPN action and later BPN testimony in chronological order.
Transfer chain examined by the courts
HISTORY AND DECISIONS
From the early record to Sumita’s successful court cases.
Paul Chandra and The Pit Nio’s recorded name
Decision 596 records Paul Chandra as owner of the fishpond land, while SHM No. 5/Lemo was registered in The Pit Nio’s name. Sumita Chandra was not related to Paul Chandra; their shared surname “Chandra” was coincidental.
Read Decision 596 →The Pit Nio sells to Chairil Widjaja
Deed No. 202/12/I/1982 records the sale of SHM No. 5/Lemo from The Pit Nio to Chairil Widjaja.
Chairil sells to Sumita Chandra
Deed No. 38/5/VIII/Teluknaga/1988 records the sale from Chairil Widjaja to Sumita Chandra. SHM No. 5/Lemo was then transferred and registered in Sumita Chandra’s name.
Open the certificate →The Pit Nio sells again to Wisnu
After the sale to Chairil, The Pit Nio entered into another transaction over the same land with Wisnu Sujanto in 1984. Wisnu later reported Paul Chandra, leading to Decision 596/Pid/S/1993/PN Tng.
Read Decision 596 →The Pit Nio transfers the land for a third time
After the 1982 transaction with Chairil and the 1984 transaction with Wisnu, The Pit Nio again transferred the same land through Grant Deed No. 657/Kec-Tlg/1994 to Vera Juniarti Hidayat. According to the family, Vera was The Pit Nio’s sister. Vera then sued Chairil and Sumita.
Read Decision 726 →Sumita succeeds in the administrative-court proceedings
Decision 51/G/PTUN-BDG/1994 considered an argument relying on Decision 596 but held Deed 202/1982 legally valid. Decisions 51/G, 128/B/1995/PT.TUN and 276 K/TUN/1996 cancelled the 1984 transaction with Wisnu, not the 1982 and 1988 transfers in the Chairil–Sumita chain.
Read Decision 51/G →Sumita succeeds in the civil proceedings
Vera sued Chairil and Sumita. Decision 726/Pdt/1998/PT Bdg reversed the first-instance judgment, dismissed Vera’s claim, and held the 1982 and 1988 deeds valid and binding. Cassation 3306 K/Pdt/2000 and judicial review 250 PK/Pdt/2004 were later dismissed.
Read Decision 726 →CONCLUSION FROM THE DECISIONS
Not one court judgment cancelled Sumita Chandra’s ownership rights.
On the contrary, the administrative-court and civil judgments support the legal validity of the sale from The Pit Nio to Chairil Widjaja and the subsequent sale from Chairil Widjaja to Sumita Chandra.
Because both deeds were held valid and Sumita Chandra’s family never sold or transferred SHM No. 5/Lemo to any party, the chain of title examined by the courts ends with Sumita Chandra.
When BPN later cancelled the transfer entry to Sumita Chandra and returned the entry to The Pit Nio, the question requiring an answer is: on what basis could The Pit Nio’s heirs become owners if The Pit Nio had already sold the land and the sale had been held valid by the courts?
This summary is a navigation guide, not a substitute for the judgments. If there is any difference, the official operative orders and reasoning control.
Continue reading