ANALISIS YURIDIS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 47 K/TUN/2020 MENGENAI TUMPANG TINDIH ANTARA IZIN USAHA PERTAMBANGAN (IUP) DENGAN HAK GUNA USAHA (HGU) PERKEBUNAN

JURIDICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION NUMBER 47 K/TUN/2020 REGARDING THE OVERLAP BETWEEN MINING BUSINESS PERMITS (IUP) AND PLANTATION CULTIVATION RIGHTS (HGU)

Sengketa yang terjadi antara PT. Brian Anjat Sentosa melawan PT. Sasana Yudha Bhakti merupakan bukti terjadinya tumpang tindih Hak Guna Usaha (HGB) dan Izin Usaha Pertambangan (IUP). SHGU No. 116 tertanggal 29 Oktober 2009 dan SHGU No. 147 tertanggal 29 September 2010 milik PT. Sasana Yudha Bhakti diketahui merupakan wilayah yang sama dengan IUP Operasi Produksi tertanggal 8 Mei 2018 milik PT. Brian Anjat Sentosa.  Hingga perkara pada tingkat kasasi pada Putusan No. 47 K/TUN/2018, hakim memutuskan yang pada intinya SHGU No. 116 harus dibatalkan, Pasal 137 Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara menyatakan jika IUP bukanlah merupakan bukti atau tanda kepimilikan hak atas tanah. Penelitian ini bertujuan memahami pertimbangan hakim dan akibat hukum dari Putusan No. 47 K/TUN/2018. Penelitian ini termasuk dalam penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan konseptual. Penelitian menggunakan bahan hukum primer dan sekunder. Pengumpulan bahan hukum dilakukan melalui studi kepustakaan dengan metode analisis bahan hukum secara deskriptif preskritif. Hasil penelitian adalah diketahui pertimbangan hakim yang seharusnya diberikan berdasarkan berdasarkan peristiwa hukum dan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.

The dispute between PT. Brian Anjat Sentosa against PT. Sasana Yudha Bhakti is evidence of overlapping Cultivation Rights Title (HGB) and Mining Business Licenses (IUP). SHGU No. 116 dated October 29, 2009 and SHGU No. 147 dated September 29, 2010 owned by PT. Sasana Yudha Bhakti is known to be the same area as the Production Operation IUP dated 8 May 2018 belonging to PT. Brian Anjat Sentosa. Until the case at the level of cassation in Decision No. 47 K/TUN/2018, the judge decided that in essence the two SHGUs must be cancelled, Article 137 of Law Number 4 of 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining states that IUP is not evidence or a sign of ownership of land rights. This study aims to understand the judge's considerations and the legal consequences of Decision No. 47 K/TUN/2018. This research is included in normative legal research using a statutory and conceptual approach. The research uses primary and secondary legal materials. The collection of legal materials is carried out through a literature study with a descriptive analysis method of legal materials. The result of the research is that it is known that the judge's consideration should be given based on legal events and applicable laws and regulations.