BALINEWSID.COM, BELU, EAST NUSA TENGGARA – A land ownership dispute involving Belu Deputy Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) Speaker Januaria Awalde Berek and elderly resident Anastasia Lotu has entered a new phase after the Belu Land Office (BPN) disputed claims over the legal basis for the issuance of the disputed land certificate.

The disputed property is located in Wehas Hamlet, Mandeu Village, Raimanuk District, Belu Regency, East Nusa Tenggara (NTT).

Januaria, who also chairs the Belu branch of the Gerindra Party, previously stated that she had legally acquired the land and had held a certificate in her name since 2004.

“I have held the land certificate in my own name since 2004. I purchased the land from Mr. Yakobus Bouk through a Sale and Purchase Deed (AJB),” Januaria said in a previous statement to the media.

However, the Head of the Belu Land Office, Christin Mudasih, S.ST., provided a different account regarding the transaction that formed the basis for the certificate.

According to Christin, the certificate was issued in 2004 based on a sale and purchase transaction. However, because the land had not previously been certified, the transaction used to apply for the certificate was not conducted through an AJB prepared by a Land Deed Official (PPAT).

“The land had not previously been certified. The sale and purchase did not use a Sale and Purchase Deed (AJB), but was conducted privately using a receipt,” Christin said in an official statement.

She added that the circumstances indicated an initial possibility of competing claims between the party who sold the land and the party currently occupying and managing it.

Christin explained that land ownership generally requires two forms of evidence: physical and legal evidence. Physical evidence concerns possession, use and utilization of the land, while legal evidence concerns valid ownership documents in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

The relevant legal framework includes Law No. 5 of 1960 on Basic Agrarian Principles and Government Regulation No. 18 of 2021.

Anastasia Claims Ancestral Ownership

Meanwhile, Anastasia Lotu maintains that the disputed property is ancestral land that has been occupied and cultivated by her family for generations since around 1826.

She said the land forms part of customary land associated with the Uma Bei Sesu and Uma Bei Hoar clans and that she received control of the property from her parents in 1973.

“The land has been cultivated by my ancestors since 1826. After I married, my parents handed the land down to me in 1973 to cultivate, and I have continued to manage it ever since,” Anastasia said.

She claimed that she had never been informed of any land measurement process or the issuance of a certificate in another person’s name.

The dispute came to wider attention on July 1, 2026, when Anastasia and her family cut down several trees on the property as part of efforts to renovate her parents’ house, which was built in 1962.

The activity was stopped by officers from the Raimanuk Police Sector after a report was allegedly filed by Januaria, who claimed that the land had been certified in her name.

Anastasia said the timber that had already been cut was subsequently secured by police.

“I was shocked because suddenly I was told that I could not take the wood I had planted myself. The police said there had been a report because the land was already certified,” she said.

Anastasia Presents Evidence of Physical Possession

To support her claim, Anastasia has presented several pieces of evidence that she says demonstrate her family’s long-standing physical possession and use of the land.

Among them are long-established crops on the property and a well that she said was built together with German missionary Br. Beatus SVD in 1973.

She also pointed to part of the land that her family allegedly donated in 1980 for the construction of SDK Amahatan under the Astanara Foundation.

In addition, Anastasia presented Land and Building Tax (PBB) payment records that she said had been paid regularly for the disputed property.

Lawyer Calls for Certificate to Be Legally Tested

Anastasia’s lawyer, Primus Klau, S.H., said the conflicting statements from the Belu Land Office and the certificate holder warranted further legal examination.

According to Primus, if the 2004 transaction was indeed based only on a private receipt and did not involve an AJB, the legality of the subsequent transfer of rights and the certificate issued from that process should be examined through the courts.

“The difference between the statement of the Head of the Belu Land Office and that of the certificate holder provides grounds for us to conduct a deeper legal analysis. If the 2004 sale and purchase was indeed carried out only with a receipt and without a Sale and Purchase Deed, then the legal validity of the certificate should be tested through the courts,” Primus said on Sunday, August 2, 2026.

He also questioned the legal basis under which Yakobus Bouk allegedly sold the land to Januaria in 2004.

The question arose because, according to the Belu Land Office, the property had not been certified at the time of the transaction, while Anastasia’s family claims to have occupied and cultivated the land for generations.

“If the land was indeed uncertified when the transaction took place, then the legal basis of the seller’s ownership must be questioned. Was the seller legally entitled to the land and authorized to transfer the rights?” Primus said.

He argued that if it were eventually established that the seller had no legal rights over the property, the transaction could potentially be declared invalid.

Primus referred to Article 37 Paragraph (1) of Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 on Land Registration, which provides rules concerning the registration of transfers of land rights through transactions such as sales, exchanges and grants.

He said his legal team was still examining all available documents and evidence before determining further legal action.

Primus also said he would provide legal assistance to Anastasia on a pro bono basis.

BPN Says It Will Support the Legal Process

The Belu Land Office said it would cooperate with law enforcement authorities in efforts to resolve the dispute.

“The Belu Land Office is ready to support efforts to address the land issue, which is currently being handled by law enforcement authorities, in order to achieve a proper resolution,” Christin said.

The legal status of ownership of the disputed land has yet to be conclusively determined by a court.

The case is expected to depend on further verification of land documents, evidence presented by both sides, and any legal proceedings or mediation undertaken by the parties.

This report observes the presumption of innocence. All parties mentioned retain the right to provide clarification and legal defense in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.