ANALISIS YURIDIS PUTUSAN PENGADILAN TINGGI TATA USAHA NEGARA SURABAYA NOMOR : 109/B/2019/PT.TUN.SBY MENGENAI PENCABUTAN IZIN PEMAKAIAN TANAH

Abstract

Abstrak

Pada kasus ini penggugat yang bernama Fong Akie Wiyono mengajukan gugatan di Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Surabaya pada tanggal 30 Agustus 2018 untuk menggugat Walikota Surabaya. Penggugat merasa keberatan atas pencabutan Izin Pemakaian Tanah miliknya yang dicabut oleh Tergugat pada tanggal 4 juni 2018 dengan alasan Penggugat menelantarkan tanah. Pada kasus sengketa ini hakim Pengadilan Tata Usaha Surabaya pada putusan nomor : 140/G/2018/PTUN.SBY. mengabulkan seluruhnya gugatan penggugat Fong Akie Wiyono dan menyatakan batal surat pencabutan Izin Pemakaian Tanah. selanjutnya Tergugat mengajukan banding di Pengadilan Tinggi Tata Usaha Negara Surabaya. Pada tanggal 20 Mei 2019 Mejelis Hakim Pengadilan Tinggi Tata Usaha Negara Surabaya pada putusan nomor : 109/B/2019/PT.TUN/SBY. yang isinya menyatakan mengabulkan permohonan banding pembanding/tergugat dan membatalkan putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Surabaya nomor : 140/G/2018/PTUN.SBY, tanggal 17 Januari 2019 yang dimohonkan banding. Pertimbangan hakim dalam mengabulkan permohonan pembanding karena pihak terbanding/penggugat terjadi kekeliruan dalam penentuan subjek sengketa yang harus didugat.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis (1) Apa dasar petimbangan hakim dalam putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Tata Usaha Negara Surabaya nomor : 109/B/2019/PT.TUN/SBY? (2) Apa akibat hukum putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Tata Usaha Negara Surabaya nomor : 109/B/2019/PT.TUN/SBY. bagi para pihak terkait?. Penelitian ini menggunakan statue approach, case approach dan conceptual approach. Dalam menyelesaikan isu hukum peneliti menggunakan metode interpretasi hukum.

Hasil penelitian ini adalah penilus kurang setuju dengan pertimbangan hukum majelis hakim pada amar putusan nomor : 140/G/2018/PTUN.SBY. Menurut penulis subjek gugatan yang diajukan Penggugat tidak salah karena menurut pasal 14 angka (4) Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 Tentang Administrasi Pemerintah “Badan dan/atau Pejabat Pemerintahan yang menerima Mandat harus menyebutkan atas nama Badan dan/atau Pejabat Pemerintahan yang memberikan Mandat”. Menurut analisis penulis subjek sengketa sudah tepat karena kewenangan yang diberikan oleh walikota kepada dinas adalah kewenangan mandat bukan delegasi.

Kata Kunci: Perizinan, Izin Pemakaian Tanah, Kewenangan, Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara

Abstract

In this case the plaintiff named Fong Akie Wiyono filed a lawsuit in the Surabaya State Administrative Court on August 30, 2018 to sue the Mayor of Surabaya. The Plaintiff has objected to the revocation of the Use of Land Permit that was revoked by the Defendant on June 4, 2018 on the grounds that the Plaintiff abandoned the land. In this dispute case the Surabaya Administrative Court judge in decision number: 140 / G / 2018 / PTUN.SBY. granted all of the plaintiffs' lawsuit, Fong Akie Wiyono, and declared the cancellation of the land use permit revocation. then the Defendant filed an appeal at the Surabaya State Administrative High Court. On May 20, 2019, the Judge of the Surabaya State Administrative High Court in decision number: 109 / B / 2019 / PT.TUN / SBY. the contents of which state that they grant the appeal / defendant's appeal and cancel the Surabaya State Administrative Court's decision no. 140 / G / 2018 / PTUN.SBY, dated January 17, 2019 the appeal was filed. Judges' considerations in granting the petition for comparison because the comparator / plaintiff made a mistake in determining the subject of the dispute that must be sued.

This study aims to analyze (1) What is the basis for the judges' consideration in the Surabaya State Administrative High Court's decision number: 109 / B / 2019 / PT.TUN / SBY? (2) What are the legal consequences of the Surabaya State Administrative High Court's decision number: 109 / B / 2019 / PT.TUN / SBY. for related parties ?. This study uses a statue approach, case approach and conceptual approach. In solving legal issues, researchers use the method of legal interpretation.

The results of this study are that the penilus disagrees with the legal considerations of the judges in the ruling number: 140 / G / 2018 / PTUN.SBY. According to the author, the subject of the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is not wrong because according to article 14 number (4) of Law Number 30 Year 2014 Regarding Government Administration "Government Agencies and / or Officials that accept the Mandate must mention on behalf of the Government Agency and / or Officer who grants the Mandate". According to the author's analysis the subject of the dispute is appropriate because the authority given by the mayor to the office is the authority of the mandate not the delegation.

Keywords: Licensing, Land Use Permit, Authority, State Administrative Court