PRIME NEWS POST

LABUAN BAJO, NTT — A dispute over approximately 16 hectares of land in the Karangan area, Labuan Bajo Subdistrict, West Manggarai Regency, has returned to the Labuan Bajo Religious Court.

The case was filed by three heirs of the late Haji Makking, represented by legal counsel, against 18 defendants and 39 associated defendants. It is registered under Case No. 73/Pdt.G/2026/PA.Lbj.

Haji Ramang Ishaka and Muhammad Syair are named as parties in the proceedings — Ramang Ishaka as Defendant XVI and Muhammad Syair as Defendant XVII. Both appear in case documents linked to customary records cited as part of the legal basis for the contested land.

Contested History of the 16-Hectare Parcel

The plaintiffs — Taiba binti Muhammad Soleh, Haji Mustajib bin Taba, and Badaria binti Taba — claim to be rightful heirs of Haji Makking. They assert the roughly 16-hectare Karangan land forms part of the deceased’s estate that has never been divided and remains as undistributed inheritance.

At issue is a sale dated 2 May 1990, in which H. Siti Naasiah Daeng Mawera and the late Nasar bin Haji Supu purportedly sold the land to the late Nikolaus Naput for Rp9 million. Plaintiffs argue the transaction occurred without the knowledge or consent of all heirs.

Matters deepened when portions of the land were linked to three certificates of ownership issued in 2017:

– SHM No. 02546 — issued to Johanis Vans Naput
– SHM No. 02547 — issued to Nikolaus Naput
– SHM No. 02548 — issued to Irene Elisa Winarthy Naput

Read : Hery Susanto Nickel Corruption Case: A Severe Test for Ombudsman Independence and National Supremacy of Law

Customary Documents Under Examination

Beyond inheritance and sale claims, customary records have emerged as a central point of contention. Documents tracing land origins and customary handovers are cited as integral to establishing legal standing over the disputed property.

In disputes with customary roots, records of historical possession, provenance, and transfer carry significant weight in validating claims and administrative processes. The involvement of Haji Ramang Ishaka and Muhammad Syair with these documents will be rigorously examined during hearings. Key questions include:

– How was the land’s history recorded?
– Who authored or issued the documents?
– Who filed the applications?
– Who witnessed or participated in these processes?

All claims remain allegations to be proven before the court.

Florianus Surion: All Documents Must Be Openly Verified

Florianus Surion, Chair of the Ferry Adu NTT Volunteer Network, stated the dispute should be resolved through legal channels to ensure equal opportunity for all parties to present evidence and clarification. He spoke in Labuan Bajo, East Nusa Tenggara, on Sunday, 27 September 2026.

“Inheritance, land history, customary records, sale agreements — through to certificate issuance — every document must be laid open,” he said. “The priority is objective, transparent verification of all materials. If rights are claimed, they must be proven in court.”

Florianus also cautioned against social unrest: “This dispute must not spark new conflict. All sides must respect the legal process and allow each party to present its evidence and defense.”

Ramang Ishaka and Muhammad Syair Await Clarification

As the case proceeds, the roles of Haji Ramang Ishaka and Muhammad Syair remain under scrutiny. Their explanations regarding the customary documents and their involvement in land transactions or certification processes are deemed essential.

Read : Call to Uphold the Mandate of Heaven and the Word of the Earth: "Moral Messages and Customary Spirituality for Sultans, Kings, Datus, Princes, and Customary Leaders of the Nusantara"

Being named a defendant does not imply wrongdoing; all allegations are subject to evidence and judicial review. No legal conclusions have been reached.

As of press time, Haji Ramang Ishaka and Muhammad Syair have not responded to the claims. This publication extends an open invitation to them, along with Johanis Vans Naput, the Naput family, and all named parties, to provide clarification and right of reply.