Search

Article 65 of Law No. 2 of 2014 concerning Notarial Department states "Notary, Substitute Notary and Notary Acting Officer are responsible for any deed made even though the Notary Protocol has been submitted or transferred to the notary protocol depository." In practice, it often occurs when the Protocol Deed is transferred to the Notary protocol holder of the party harmed by the existence of the deed to a lawsuit involving a retired notary public. This is as happened in the case in the Banda Aceh District Court. This relates to the summoning of witnesses who must obtain approval from the Notary Honorary Assembly in accordance with Article 66 paragraph 1 of the UUJN. This research aims to explain the position of the Deed made by a retired Notary who is sued to the Court and the liability of the Notary Protocol Holder if the Deed of Protocol held in question in the Court and to know the need for approval from the Notary Honorary Assembly if the retired notary is called as a witness in a court case. The research method used is normative research method. The data used is primary data. The results showed that: A retired notary (werda) the position of the deed that he made as a deed of protocol submitted to the Notary protocol holder. If the deed of protocol is questioned to the court, then the retired notary is responsible for the deed he made. The notary of the Protocol holder cannot be held liable for the Deed of Protocol he holds if it is in question in the Court. If there is a problem with the deed then the responsible person remains the notary concerned and not the notary protocol holder. The summons of a retired Notary does not require permission from the Notary Honorary Assembly (MKN).

Based on Article 32 paragraph (2) of Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration states, in the event that a land area has been issued a certificate legally and on behalf of a person or legal entity who acquires the land in good faith and expressly controls it, then the other party who feels that it has the right to the land, can no longer demand the exercise of the right if within a period of 5 years from the issuance of the certificate does not object in writing to the holder of the certificate or the Head of the Land Office concerned or does not file a lawsuit to the Court regarding the mastery or issuance of the certificate. Legal problems arise that a certificate that has been issued a certificate for 5 years can not be sued in court on an validity basis. The results showed that the cancellation of land rights certificate by tun court based on The State Administrative Court Law, cancellation of land certificates by deliberation and other efforts and unilateral settlement by the National Land Agency (BPN) has been carried out, where the plaintiffs held a review of the State Administrative Decision that has been issued can not be received by the plaintiff or the disputing party. Prior to the ruling that has legal force it remains prohibited for the relevant State Administration officials to carry out mutations on the land in question, it is to avoid the occurrence of problems in the future that cause harm to the litigants and third parties.