Court decisions that have obtained permanent legal force (inkracht) unequivocally state that Certificate of Ownership (SHM) No. 5/Lemo is lawfully owned by the Charlie Chandra family. This legal certainty has been affirmed through a series of civil and administrative court rulings, and not a single judgment or ruling has ever annulled this ownership right. Yet in practice, these inkracht decisions have been treated as if they never existed:
Instead of being respected as the foundation of legal certainty, the old criminal judgment has been selectively revived and used as the basis for criminal reports. From that point on, the criminalization of the Charlie Chandra family began, even though the core issue of land ownership had been fully resolved and finally adjudicated by the courts. Criminal proceedings were then used to reopen a property right that had already been declared lawful, after the Charlie Chandra family refused to sell the land to PT MBM (PIK 2) twice, in 2013 and 2021.
Lawful Ownership of the Land in the Name of Sumita Chandra
An old dispute that had already been resolved through court rulings was later revived by PIK 2.
The land originally registered in the name of The Pit Nio was sold to Chairil Widjaja, and subsequently Chairil Widjaja sold the land to Sumita Chandra through a lawful and valid sale transaction. After the transfer of rights had occurred, The Pit Nio again sold the same land to another party, Wisnu Soejanto, even though legally the land had already changed ownership. Not stopping there, The Pit Nio later also granted the same land as a gift to Vera Juniarti Hidayat, who is his relative.
Read also this investigative report in Gatra Magazine – “The Dark Trail of Agung Sedayu in PIK 2”
This series of repeated sales and grants over land whose rights had already been relinquished is what triggered the legal dispute. All of these events were subsequently examined and resolved through judicial proceedings, both civil and administrative. The courts consistently assessed the validity of the acquisition of rights, considered the existence of later criminal cases, and ultimately affirmed that ownership of the land in the name of Sumita Chandra is lawful and legally binding.
Nevertheless, PT MBM (PIK 2) has used this sequence of old events as the basis to criminalize Sumita Chandra and Charlie Chandra, as if SHM No. 5/Lemo had never been acquired through a lawful sale due to the existence of an old criminal ruling.
The public can judge for themselves what is true and what is false.
All facts, court rulings, and official documents in this case are open, documented, and independently verifiable.
This is the evidence.
Administrative Court (PTUN) Decisions
The administrative validity of land ownership in the name of Sumita Chandra has been thoroughly examined through a tiered administrative court process that has obtained permanent legal force (inkracht), namely Decision No. 51/G/PTUN-BDG/1994, which was subsequently affirmed by Decision No. 128/B/1995/PT, and finally reaffirmed by Cassation Decision No. 276 K/TUN/1996.
At every level of adjudication, the administrative courts consistently held that the issuance and validity of the land administration related to Sumita Chandra’s ownership were lawful, and that there were no defects of authority, procedure, or substance that could justify annulment.
PTUN Decisions Confirm No Grounds for Administrative Annulment
The PTUN panel of judges thoroughly examined the administrative objections raised, including claims of defects in the issuance of land rights. However, the court concluded that the administrative decisions underlying Sumita Chandra’s ownership were issued by competent authorities, through proper procedures, and based on lawful title.
These rulings confirm that there is no defective administrative decision that could justify cancellation of the certificate or removal of rights in the name of Sumita Chandra. Administratively, the right therefore stands as valid and legally protected.
No Connection to the Old Criminal Judgment
In this administrative review, the courts also considered the existence of criminal cases often cited to cast doubt on Sumita Chandra’s ownership. However, as emphasized in the PTUN rulings, criminal cases that do not contain an explicit order for administrative annulment cannot be used as a basis to revoke rights through administrative proceedings.
In other words, an old criminal judgment does not automatically nullify or cancel land administration decisions unless there is an explicit order to do so. The fact that PTUN rulings up to the cassation level consistently upheld Sumita Chandra’s ownership demonstrates that there is no administrative causal link between the criminal case and the status of the ownership right.
Civil Court Decision 726/Pdt/1998/PT.Bdg
Ownership of the land in the name of Sumita Chandra was comprehensively tested through civil court proceedings that have obtained permanent legal force (inkracht), namely Decision No. 726/Pdt/1998/PT.Bdg, subsequently affirmed by Decision No. 3306 K/Pdt/2000, and finally reaffirmed by Judicial Review Decision No. 250 PK/Pdt/2004.
The dispute arose after Vera Juniarti Hidayat received the land as a grant from The Pit Nio, even though factually and legally the land had already been sold twice by The Pit Nio—first to Chairil Widjaja and then to Sumita Chandra. The grant was made after the rights had already transferred, meaning The Pit Nio no longer had authority to transfer or grant the same land.
At the first instance, Sumita Chandra was initially declared to have lost the case. However, the matter did not end there. On appeal, the panel of judges conducted a comprehensive re-examination of the underlying title, the chain of sales, subsequent grants, and the existence of criminal cases often cited as objections.
In this series of decisions, the court explicitly held that the title and ownership of the land by Sumita Chandra are lawful and legally binding. The judges also evaluated all objections raised, including the existence of the old criminal judgment No. 596/PID/S/1993/PN/TNG concerning alleged fingerprint forgery.
The civil court expressly set aside the old criminal judgment, on the grounds that it did not annul Sumita Chandra’s ownership rights, did not order cancellation of the certificate, and did not negate the validity of the acquisition of the disputed land.
Status of Old Criminal Judgment No. 596/PID/S/1993/PN/TNG
In the examination of the civil case, the court considered the existence of the old criminal judgment related to alleged fingerprint forgery. Importantly, that criminal judgment contains no ruling ordering cancellation of ownership rights, no order to cancel the certificate, and no determination of any transfer of land rights to another party.
Furthermore, Decision No. 596 has no direct legal relationship with Sumita Chandra, does not concern the Sale and Purchase Deed (AJB) forming Sumita Chandra’s title, and does not assess or invalidate Sumita Chandra’s acquisition of rights. Accordingly, as a matter of law, the old criminal judgment cannot be used to negate, question, or annul Sumita Chandra’s ownership.
Decision 596 Does Not Bind Land Administration
Because Decision No. 596 contains no order to cancel the certificate, the National Land Agency (BPN) has neither authority nor obligation to cancel SHM in the name of Sumita Chandra based on that decision. Under land law, certificates may only be cancelled pursuant to an explicit court order or a valid administrative decision.
Therefore, BPN’s position in not cancelling Sumita Chandra’s ownership is consistent with administrative law and the principle of legal certainty, not negligence or omission. BPN is bound to respect civil judgments that have obtained permanent legal force and may not act beyond the scope of a criminal judgment that provides no administrative mandate.
2021 Legal Notice (Somasi) Explicitly Acknowledges Sumita Chandra’s Position
The legal notice was addressed to the Heirs of Sumita Chandra, constituting implicit acknowledgment of factual possession and ownership.
The notice explicitly stated that SHM No. 5/Lemo was last known to be possessed and kept by Sumita Chandra, and that following his passing, possession was assumed to be with his heirs—not the heirs of The Pit Nio.
Response of the Heirs to PT MBM’s Legal Notice (PIK 2)
The legal notice was not only rejected but substantively responded to with legal explanations reinforcing the validity of ownership in the name of Sumita Chandra. The heirs affirmed that SHM No. 5/Lemo remains registered in Sumita Chandra’s name and has never been transferred, sold, or annulled.
The heirs further explained that the land was lawfully acquired through a valid sale in 1988 and duly registered. The old criminal case cited by PT MBM had already been examined and set aside in civil proceedings and therefore could not invalidate the ownership.
Any subsequent criminal allegations against Sumita Chandra were never proven and were terminated. Accordingly, no judgment ever found Sumita Chandra guilty of forgery as alleged.
Based on all of the above, there is no legal basis for any party to demand, seize, or control SHM No. 5/Lemo. The ownership remains valid, effective, and legally protected.
Criminal Reports, Seizure, and Termination of Investigation
After the heirs submitted their response to the legal notice, Charlie Chandra was reported criminally on allegations of embezzlement of SHM No. 5/Lemo. The report concerned physical possession of a certificate that remains administratively registered in the name of Sumita Chandra.
During the investigation, SHM No. 5/Lemo was temporarily seized. However, following a comprehensive review, law enforcement concluded that there was no criminal element. The investigation was terminated (SP3), and the certificate was returned to Charlie Chandra as heir—confirming that it was not proceeds of a crime but a lawful ownership document.
This termination and return further confirm that possession of SHM No. 5/Lemo lies with the rightful party. It is legally impossible to claim embezzlement of a certificate that lawfully belongs to one’s own family and has never been annulled by any court.
This sequence of events underscores that the issue is not a criminal matter, but criminalization following the family’s refusal to sell the land to PT MBM (PIK 2).
Conclusion
All civil and administrative court rulings have affirmed that ownership of SHM No. 5/Lemo in the name of Sumita Chandra is lawful and has never been annulled.
The criminal judgment often cited does not order cancellation of ownership, and subsequent criminal proceedings were terminated with the return of the certificate to the rightful party.
Accordingly, this case is not a dispute over ownership, but a matter of disregard for court decisions and legal certainty.