Bintaro House Eviction Delayed as Family Questions Legal Process, Land Boundaries

JAKARTA, STUPA — A planned court-ordered eviction of a house in Bintaro, South Jakarta, had not been carried out by Thursday afternoon (Oct. 22) after a Prophet Muhammad's birthday celebration at the property complicated the planned operation.

Dozens of police officers were seen guarding the area around the house on Cempaka III Street in Pesanggrahan district. The planned eviction had earlier sparked tensions between local neighbourhood officials and members of the Linkan family, who are seeking to retain the disputed property.

The family's lawyer, Igor, said his clients questioned the legal basis and procedures for the eviction, including issues related to an alleged debt transaction, the value of the property and the precise boundaries of the land involved in the dispute.

Igor said the case originated in a debt-related matter involving Indonesia's State Receivables Affairs Committee, known as PUPN. The dispute subsequently involved a power of attorney to sell the property and arrangements for vacating the house, he said.

The family has also questioned the difference between the property's estimated value and the amount allegedly received by the borrower.

Haji Mahsar, a relative of Linkan, said the disputed house was estimated to be worth around 13 billion rupiah ($780,000). However, the borrower allegedly received only about 2.85 billion rupiah, despite a stated contractual amount of 5 billion rupiah, he said.

“The amount stipulated in the agreement was supposed to be 5 billion rupiah, but after deductions for interest or a similar discount, our relative received only around 2.85 billion rupiah,” Mahsar said.

The figures were provided by the family and have not been independently verified.

Family Questions Property Inspection Process

Igor also raised concerns about constatering, a process involving the inspection and verification of a property designated for court-ordered execution to establish its location and boundaries.

He claimed the family had not received an invitation to attend the process, raising questions, in his view, about whether the land designated for eviction had been clearly identified.

Igor said land certificates numbered 6605 and 6606 were associated with the property used as collateral for the loan. He argued that another certificate also related to the wider area, including the disputed house.

“The disputed house is associated with three land certificates. Two are said to have been included in the execution, while the boundaries of the land covered by the third remain unclear,” Igor said.

He said the scope of the property and its boundaries needed to be established to prevent further legal disputes.

The claims regarding the land certificates and the precise scope of the court-ordered execution could not be independently confirmed.

Heirs File Legal Challenges

The dispute also involves questions of ownership and inheritance rights following the death of Linkan's husband.

Igor said one of the land certificates was registered in Linkan's name and that the ownership was connected to property acquired during the marriage. The family believes the interests of the heirs should therefore be considered in resolving the dispute, he said.

According to Igor, his legal team has filed two legal challenges against the planned execution, one on behalf of Linkan and another on behalf of the heirs.

He said the filings were intended to protect the rights of parties who, in the family's view, have a legal interest in the property.

The current status of the two challenges, and whether they have affected the execution process, could not be independently confirmed.

As of 5 p.m. local time on Thursday, court bailiffs from the South Jakarta District Court had not been seen carrying out the eviction.

The court and the party seeking the eviction had not issued official statements explaining the delay, addressing the family's objections or confirming a new date for the operation by the time this report was prepared.

The legal basis for the eviction, the boundaries of the land and the status of the family's court challenges remain among the key issues requiring clarification from the parties involved. (Jamira)