Electric Poles Erected on Private Land Without Clear Compensation, Landowner Appeals to the Constitutional Court

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - A sailor named Dewa Nanda Adnan has filed a judicial review of Articles 30 paragraphs (2) and (5) of Law Number 30 of 2009 on Electricity (Electricity Law) to the Constitutional Court (MK) due to the use of his land for electric poles belonging to PLN.

The petitioner owns a plot of land in Magetan Regency, on which two distribution network electric poles of PLN are erected.

He raises concerns regarding the lack of clarity on compensation obligations for the land beneath these electric poles, as well as the absence of a requirement to record land dispute resolutions in the land registration system, leading to legal uncertainty.

“I want certainty so that my property certificate (SHM) reflects the physical condition. If all these electric poles are recorded as a burden on the SHM, there will be no confusion,” Dewa stated during the initial hearing of case number 372/PUU-XXIV/2026, as reported on the Constitutional Court's website on Wednesday (21/10/2026).

Article 30 paragraph (2) of the Electricity Law states:

“The use of land as referred to in paragraph (1) by the holder of an electricity supply business license is required to provide compensation to the land rights holder and/or users of state land.”

Furthermore, Article 30 paragraph (5) of the Electricity Law states:

“The holder of an electricity supply business license, when using land controlled by the holder of land rights or users of state land, is required to resolve land issues by providing certainty regarding the status, area, boundaries, basis of control or use, and the legal relationship concerning the part of land used permanently for electricity activities.”

The petitioner argues that on his land stand two electric poles with concrete foundations and piles, without any official permission documents, without proof of compensation payment, and without any burden recorded in the property certificate.

According to him, Article 30 paragraph (2) of the Electricity Law is ambiguous, allowing PLN to interpret that distribution networks do not require compensation.

Meanwhile, concerning Article 30 paragraph (5) of the Electricity Law, the petitioner claims that there is a legislative omission.

This rule mandates the resolution of land issues but does not specify the obligation to record the results, meaning the petitioner’s property certificate remains unencumbered despite the physical presence of electric poles on the land.

In one of his demands, he requests that the Court amend Article 30 paragraph (2) of the Electricity Law to include the obligation for compensation, including for distribution networks.