
































Microsoft Word - 7. Harto Juwono copy.docx


 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  69 

 
Received:  
January 21, 2025 
 
Revised:  
October 21, 2025 
 
Accepted:  
November 7, 2025 

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of 
Landownership in Colonial Indonesia 

 
Harto Juwono,*1 Nico A. Van Horn2,3 

1Study Program of History, Faculty of Humanities 
State University of Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Central Java, Indonesia  

2Koninklijk Nederlands Instituut voor Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde (KITLV) 
Leiden, The Netherlands 

3Nationaal Archief, The Hague, The Netherlands 
 

*Corresponding Author: hartojuwono20@gmail.com 
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/ihis.v9i1.25799  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 
This paper seeks to address the existence of land property rights that emerged after the end of 
the Cultuurstelsel era and continued to exist as a form of dualism in land property rights until 
the era of Indonesian independence. By explaining this dualism, it is possible to explain what 
forms the property rights are, their differences and consequences, thus providing an 
explanation for a number of civil issues that are still often encountered in the judicial 
institutions in Indonesia today. 

In 1870 the Dutch colonial government issued Basic Agrarian Regulations (Agrarische 
Wet and Agrarisch Besluit). In these regulations, the colonial government established her 
orientation that to that time showed a doubtful attitude in agrarian policy, namely the Domein 
Verklaring. This principle stated that the state becomes the ruler and/or owner of the land, 
especially when the land cannot be textually proven to be owned by anyone (Staatsblad van 
Nederlandsche Indie 1870, no. 55). 

Abstract 
 

This article aims to elucidate the existence of two distinct forms of land 
property rights within the colonial civil law system in Indonesia. By doing so, 
it seeks to identify the historical origins of issues encountered in contemporary 
civil law cases. These issues, which are deeply rooted in colonial legal 
practices, can be better understood by tracing the development of two parallel 
regimes of property rights: Western civil property rights and indigenous 
property rights. To examine the origins of these problems, this study employs 
the historical method, which consists of four stages, namely heuristics, source 
criticism, interpretation, and historical reconstruction. The sources used are 
primarily historical documents, with particular emphasis on their authenticity 
and reliability. The findings indicate that the colonial civil law system was 
characterized by a dualism of land property rights, each governed by distinct 
limitations and regulatory frameworks. This dualism emerged as a result of 
ambiguities and inconsistencies in colonial policies concerning indigenous 
land ownership. 
 
Keywords: Agrarian Law; Property Rights; Colonial Government; Indigenous 
Land Rights. 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  70 

Starting from the mid-19th century, especially when the colonial government applied 
the principle of concordance within her legal system in the Dutch East Indies, signified by the 
publication of the Regeeringsreglement as the first law in the colony in 1854 (Staatsblad van 
Nederlandsche Indie 1855, no. 2), the definition and limits of individual rights to land were 
clarified and standardised. The government herself at that time had de facto established the 
existence of the highest authority in terms of land tenure. Even the Governor-General of the 
Dutch East Indies as the highest authority in the colony was subject to the prohibitions on the 
release of rights to land whether through sale, transfer, grant or other means, especially to 
foreigners. 

Through the implementation of this law, the Dutch East Indies government entered a 
period of transition from a system of sole exploitation by the state based on the Cultuurstelsel 
since 1830 to a system of partnership exploitation that increasingly led to the liberalisation of 
the colonial economy, especially since the 1850s. When the pressure to end the state's 
dominance in the economic control of the colonial lands, especially Java, grew stronger in the 
Dutch parliament, the government felt the need to take preparatory steps, especially in 
securing her assets and preventing upheaval among the indigenous people from occurring 
Since 1848, The Ducth Parliament began to discuss about the exploitative policy under the 
Cultivation System in Jawa, and it reached her climax in 1860s as majority in the Dutch 
Parliament agreed that the system had to be abolished. “Cultuurstelsel” (Koopmans 2016, 85). 

These two policies became top priorities for the transitional governments in the 
Netherlands and Dutch East Indies since 1848, when a new Constitution (Grondwet) was 
issued in the Netherlands which was also used as a legal orientation for making policies 
towards the colonies (Winckel 1863, 50). The emergence of these two basic laws, the Grondwet 
and the Regeeringsreglement, marked a change in government policy. especially towards the 
agrarian sector in the Dutch East Indies colony, which led to the two principles above. 

The first principle, protecting government assets, required eight years from 1855. The 
main focus of this policy was on objects that officially became government assets, namely 
government property rights over land (gouvernementseigendom). Right van ownership (recht 
van eigendom) in the Netherland was a highest of the ownership, because it provided a full of 
control to the owner over his land. It was a heritage of European feudal system since the 
turning of Millenium.  In East India, the Dutch adapted the system to local or traditional law 
for minimizing the probability of conflict against the natives (Mauliana, Handoyo, Zahra, 
Erowati, dan Pudyastiwi 2025, 146). Up until that moment the government had controlled and 
used a lot of land, partly as inheritance from the VOC and partly through annexation or 
clearance or acquisition of rights (onteigening) for reasons of public interest (Genootschap 
1866, 329). All assets were physically controlled by the government and built as infrastructure, 
but in a formal juridical context all these infrastructure objects were still not supported by clear 
and firm textual rights. 

Eight years later, after the issuance of the above regulation, the government issued a 
regulation that confirmed the land status of all these infrastructure. On 12 August 1863, the 
regulation was promulgated and reads as follows. 

 
Te bepalen dat gouvernements-gronden, begeerd voor den aanbouw van woonhuizen en 
inrigtingen van nijverheid of voor andere bebouwingen, voor zoo ver die gelegen zijn 
binnen den omtrek der hoofdplaatsen van de residentien en afdeelingen of tot uitbreiding 
van die hoofdplaatsen moeten dienen, voortaan niet anders dan in eigendom tegen den 
taxatie-prijs zullen worden afgestaan, behoudens die bijzondere gevallen, waarin zich 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  71 

hiertegen overwegende bedenkingen bij de regering mogten voordoen (Staatsblad van 
Nederlandsche Indie 1863, no. 90). [Stipulates that government lands which are 
desirable for the construction of dwellings and industrial infrastructures or for 
other buildings as far as it lies within the neighbourhood of the capital of the 
residency and afdeeling or is to be used for the expansion of the capital, can 
primarily only be disposed of in freehold at the assessed price, except in special 
cases where the objections of the government under consideration are raised 
against it]. 

 
In the above provision, it is evident that the term government ground (gouvernements-

grond) appears, in the sense of land owned or possessed by the government (door het 
gouvernement toegeinen), and makes the government the absolute owner of the land (eigenaar 
van grond) (Juwono 2023, 69). This status was then institutionalized as a land that owned and 
used entirely by the government. In order to acquire it, the government could not purchase it 
from the old owner but had to release or revoke the right of the former owner and transfer the 
right to the government with payment of compensation (schadevergoeding) (Boissevain 1853, 
13-14). 

As a consequence, the government then issued a decree that the government had the right 
to acquire land deemed necessary or required for the public interest (onteigening ten algemeenen 
nut) (Andel 1857, 28). Because the principle is acquisition and revocation of rights, the 
government does not make offers or transactions but can make unilateral decisions and by 
utilizing her authority, pay compensation from the state treasury to those who are considered 
to have rights to the land that is the object. As a result, those who received the compensation, 
in addition to not having the right to bid against the government's unilaterally interpreted 
replacement value, also did not provide any evidence of the receipt of the compensation 
payment. Since then, the government has formally established this process in law (Staatsblad 
van Nederlandsch Indie 1864, no. 6). 

As the demand for the end of the Cultuurstelsel intensified in the Netherlands, the 
Government considered it necessary that the position and assets of the government in the 
colony, which had been acquired through the process of acquiring the above rights, be 
guaranteed and secured for her future interests. It seems that the main cause of gouvernment’s 
policy was the more pressure made by the liberals in the Dutch parliament throughout 1860s., 
as liberals dominated the parliament. So, The Dutch East India rezime prepared to protect 
itself in controlling all Gouverment’s properties before she opened the door of colony for the 
liberal investors (Iswahyudi 2020, 466). The end of government domination with the 
Cultuurstelsel policy would certainly open the colony to private business investment, which 
would replace the government as the holder of economic hegemony (Day 1904, 334). This gave 
rise to new demands for land tenure that would impact the clarity of rights as the basis for the 
relationship between investment and the land it controls and exploits. 

Starting from this view, two years later, 1866, the government issued a new 
regulation to follow up and refine the regulation of 1863 above. The regulation, 
promulgated on 3 April 1866, reads as follows. 

 
Ten vervolge op het bepaalde bij het besluit van 7 Augustus 1863 no. 24 (Staatsblad no. 
90), te verklaren dat geen afstand in eigendom van daartoe aangevraagden grond zal plaats 
vinden, tenzij bij proceseverbaal van eene plaatselijke kommissie zij gekonstateerd, dat tegen 
dien afstand geen bezwaar bestaat, en bij meetbrief door den gezworen landmeter zij 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  72 

omschreven de oppervlakte, ligging en belendingen van het aangevraagde perceel 
(Staatsblad van Nederlandsch Indie 1866, no. 25). [Following the provision of the 
decree of 7 August 1863 nо. 24 (Staatsblad no. 90), it is stated that no relinquishment 
of the title to the land requested can be made except by the minutes of a local 
commission which finds that there is no objection to the relinquishment, and by a 
measurement by a land surveyor under oath recording the area, location and 
boundaries of the parcel requested]. 
 
There are two important points to be noted from the above provision. First, land owned 

by the government could be bought, sold, or otherwise transferred, provided that certain 
requirements were fulfilled, particularly when no objections or adverse consequences for the 
government or the state were identified. Second, the process of disposition was conducted in 
essentially the same manner as the disposal and sale of land whose ownership rights were 
held by parties other than the government. 

Through this provision, the government could assume the role of an investor or partner 
for private enterprises that required capital and administrative support. Such cooperation was 
made possible when the government granted its business entities (state-owned enterprises) or 
private partners concession rights or monopoly privileges to operate or manage activities in 
specific sectors (Kemper 1866, 17). Based on these concession rights, private companies were 
permitted to use government land and exploit it for their commercial interests. 

As evidence of control over government land used to support business operations, the 
previously issued administrative documents were withdrawn and replaced by special 
cadastral maps, such as the grondkaart. These maps functioned as official proof that the holder 
exercised control over, or had been granted the right to use, government land for specified 
purposes (Bijblad op het Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië, n.d., no. 4099). 

In this article a number of writings that have been made by several experts in their field 
will be reviewed. Priority is given not solely to their relevance but also to their contribution in 
providing input and direction for this article, with the consideration that they will become 
evidentiary references in resolving the issues that are commonly found today. 

The first is C. van Vollenhoven's work, De Indonesier en Zijn Gronden. As the father of 
customary law in Indonesia, van Vollenhoven was well aware of the system of land tenure 
and ownership among Indonesian people during the colonial era. Despite forming his own 
school of thought that differed from the others (in this case with Roufffaer in Vorstenlanden), 
van Vollenhoven outlined how indigenous people's rights to land derived from its clearing 
(ontginningsrecht), its control within the scope of communal groups (groepgemeenschap) and 
then the relation of this ownership with the institutionalised system of power in the form of 
government. 

Besides C. van Vollenhoven, a renowned work regarding land property rights in 
Indonesia, J.B. Sens's work, Eigendom van Zaken, voor den Openbaren Dienst Bestemde, can be 
seen (Sens 1934). This dissertation from the Faculty of Law at the Catholic University of 
Nijmegen explores the concept of property rights in the context of gemeen recht (common rights 
or communal rights) and their allocation to the public interest (openbare dienst bestemde zaken). 
By departing from the relationship between public law with private law, Sens attempted to 
solve the issues that arose in relation to the use of communal rights in public functions 
embodied in the security of property rights (eigendom). 

The third work directly related to land property rights in Java during the colonial era 
comes from I.W.C. van den Berg, Het Eigendomsrecht van den Staat op den Grond op Java en 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  73 

Madoera (Berg 1891, 1-26). As an observer and writer on Javanese social life. Professor van den 
Berg tried to explore how property rights emerged after the Agrarian Law was issued in 1870. 
However, in contrast to most writers, who focus on property rights held by individuals or 
business entities as a delegation from the government, van den Berg stresses that state 
property rights were formed after the law was issued. In this case, van den Berg places the 
context on the previous land system, which was based on land clearing rights 
(ontginningsrecht) either by individuals, groups or legal entities. Although there is no mention 
of state interests in this paper, the work of van den Berg can provide an illustration on how 
the changes that paved the way for the establishments of property rights to land occurred after 
1870. 
 
Method 
This research employs the historical method to trace and explain the emergence of the dualism 
of land ownership rights within the colonial agrarian legal system of the Netherlands Indies, 
particularly between recht van eigendom and inlandsche eigendom. The historical method is 
adopted because the land law issues examined in this study are products of past colonial 
policies; therefore, their proper understanding requires a chronological investigation of the 
origins of regulations, legal concepts, and agrarian practices that developed from the mid-
nineteenth century to the end of the colonial period (Gottschalk 1986; Kuntowijoyo 2013). The 
application of the historical method in this study follows the stages of heuristics, source 
criticism, interpretation, and historical reconstruction (Sjamsuddin 2016). The heuristic stage 
involves the collection of relevant written sources, including colonial legislation such as 
Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië, Bijblad Staatsblad, the Regeeringsreglement of 1855, and the 
Agrarische Wet of 1870, as well as official colonial government reports such as the Koloniaal 
Verslag, and archival materials related to agrarian policy and expropriation (onteigening) 
(Buffart 1932; Veer 1919).  

Source criticism is conducted to assess the authenticity and credibility of the materials 
by taking into account the colonial political-legal context and the normative biases inherent in 
official government documents (Day 1904). The interpretative stage is directed at analyzing 
historical data to understand the causal relationship between changes in colonial agrarian 
policy, particularly the implementation of the Domein Verklaring, the termination of the 
Cultuurstelsel, and the enactment of the Agrarische Wet of 1870—and the formation of two 
distinct regimes of land ownership rights for indigenous and non-indigenous populations 
(Vollenhoven 1925; Berg 1891). The final stage of historical reconstruction presents an 
analytical narrative that outlines the chronological and structural development of land 
ownership rights while highlighting their long-term implications for agrarian legal practices 
and land disputes in post-independence Indonesia (Heslinga 1928; Harto Juwono 2023). 
Secondary sources employed in this research include both classical and modern works in the 
fields of agrarian law and colonial history, notably writings by C. van Vollenhoven, J.B. Sens, 
L.W.C. van den Berg, J. de Louter, and other relevant historiographical studies on colonial 
agrarian systems (Sens 1934; Louter 1895). 
 
  



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  74 

Recht van Eigendom 
After guaranteeing and securing her own assets as absolute property rights, the government 
took further steps in the agrarian field by issuing the Agrarische Wet in 1870. In addition to the 
status of property rights over government land, through this law the government also controls 
ground or land that is not proven to be owned by another party. With this land control, the 
government has the authority to release it just as government land. The difference lies in the 
form of rights granted. If on government land, the sale of land ends in a property right 
(eigendom), on land controlled (beschikkingsrecht) the land is not always in the form of property 
right, but can also be a right to build (recht van opstal), a right to business (recht van erfpacht), or 
even right of use (gebruikrecht) (Buffart 1932, 3). 

The issuance of this Agrarian Law received a positive response, especially from the 
business world, which gained legal certainty over the assets that they will control and need to 
facilitate their business operations in various sectors. Through the provisions of this law, 
private investors not only have the opportunity to acquire land directly from the government 
but can also make direct contact with the people, both communal (gemeenschap) or individuals 
to acquire the land needed for their investment (Staatsblad van Nederlandsch Indie 1871, no. 163). 

Despite the guaranteed freedom to obtain land, the government in this case still imposed 
restrictions on such actions. There are at least two obstacles to absolute control of land by 
private investors, especially against the people. Firstly, the rights on which this control is based 
on all originate from the government wherever the private entrepreneur acquires land, 
whether in government areas (gouvernementlanden), or self-government areas 
(zelfbestuurlanden) and in traditional group areas (Bijblad op het Staatsblad 1860, no. 778). As a 
consequence, when the time of use has elapsed, the government can take the land back and 
restore its status as government-owned land or to the original owner such as the self-
government (swapraja) ruler (Algemeen Secretarie Gadjah Mada 1863). 

Secondly, what is acquired as tenure rights by private investors does not become 
absolute property rights. Due to the nature of the business, it is only possible to acquire large 
tracts of land from the indigenous population through lease contacts, rather than through 
acquisition of rights such as government land or direct purchase. Thus, private entrepreneurs 
can only acquire large tracts of land under the erfpacht right if it is directly related to land 
exploitation for cultivation, or the concession right (concessie recht) for exploitation outside of 
cultivation such as mining, transportation, lighting, and forestry (Riesz 1884, 76; Veer 1919, 
24). 

The granting of the status of property rights (eigendom) itself was started by the VOC in 
the early 17 Century, when a number of VOC officials bought lands around the Batavia in 
areas outside of it. For example, Cornelis Casteleyn as director-general of the VOC bought the 
lands of Srengseng, Tugu, and Depok which were subsequently turned into his property. In 
his will, Casteleyn made these lands his inheritance, both to his direct descendants and to his 
slaves who were later set free. In the 19th century, these lands were listed as Depok estate 
“ownership”. It means that the Depok land was owned collectively by the Chasteleyn’s owner 
slaves. It based on a verdich by the Supureme Court of the Netherlands Indies in 1850 (Peters 
2021, 141). 

A similar process was followed by other VOC officials including the Governor-General. 
In 1745 Baron van Imhoff bought the land of Kampung Baru in Bogor (Buitenzorg) which he 
registered as his private property. He even made the land into a semi-land for the incumbent 
governor-general’s office, with the right to sell it to his successor. In subsequent developments 
the land was made the property of the Dutch East Indies government after the system left by 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  75 

van Imhoff was abolished. 
However, although Kampung Baru was made into government land, other lands 

purchased by VOC officials around Batavia were later recognised as private property. By the 
end of the 18th century, it was recognised as private land with the rights of the owner 
(Hageman 1860, 364-365). All of these lands with private status were granted absolute 
property rights by the Dutch East Indies government and had a special position within the 
colonial agrarian system (Staatsblad van Nederlandsch Indie 1836, no. 119). 

The development of this property status still did not have a strong basis in general 
because there was no agrarian regulation that applied as a whole. The colonial government 
herself only made specific and separate regulations according to the cases that arose. Only in 
1855 with the publication of the Regeeringsreglement the opportunity to make general 
provisions on land policy in the colonial lands opened up, and eventually led to the Agrarische 
Wet of 1870. 

In addition to the Domein Verklaring principle of government control of land (Neilson 
1834, 377), this regulation also opened up opportunities for absolute property rights which 
were possible to be acquired by individuals in relation to their interests as investors. The legal 
basis used to regulate it was made in 1834. In article 11 of this regulation it is recorded as 
follows. 

 
Bij de aangifte tot overgang van den eigendom van landerijen, huizen, tuinen or erven, niet 
door openbaren verkoop maar op eenige andere wijze van eigenaar veranderd, zal door den 
landmeter, na inzage der benoodigde documenten, waaruit de bevoegdheid tot het doen van 
zoodanige overschrijving blijkt, ten zijnen kantore, behoorlijke aanteekening daarvan op de 
registers, worden gehouden met bekendstelling in geval van verkoop van den 
overeengekomen prijs, en door wien de ongelden de overschrijving vallende zullen betaald 
worden (Bijblad op het Staatsblad 1834, no. 377). [In the transfer of title to land, houses, 
gardens or yards whose owners have not changed through public sale except by 
other means, by the land surveyor after seeing the necessary documents evidencing 
his authority to carry out the registration of the change of title, an entry shall be 
made on the register with notice of the price agreed upon in the case of sale, and 
shall be paid by whoever is responsible for the registration]. 
 
In this regulation, there are two important things to note. Firstly, there is the process of 

transferring ownership of property that is recorded in a legal administrative manner. Through 
this transfer process, it can be seen that there are property rights that bind individuals to the 
objects he releases or sells. Secondly, there is the term owner (eigenaar) which is absolute in 
nature. When the recorded material mentions land, houses, gardens, and yards there is a legal 
status of absolute property rights to these objects (recht van eigendom) The term of eigendom is 
split into two : eigen means itself, and dom from dominium, namely to get a control. So both 
refers to  property right of land by someone as the owner (Pratama and Jayaputra 2024, 284). 

With this provision, not only were individual property rights guaranteed, but also the 
disposal and transfer was considered legal according to the implemented regulation. 
Therefore, by 1870, the Minister of Colonics noted in his report as follows. 

 
Geen afstand in eigendom van daartoe aangevraagde grond zal plaats vinden, tenzij bij 
process verbaal van eene plaatselijke commissie zijn geconstateerd, dat tegen dien afstand 
geen bezwaar bestaat en bij meetbrief door een gezworen landmeter zijn omschreven de 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  76 

oppervlakte, ligging en belendingen van het aangevraagde perceel (Koloniaal Verslag over 
het Jaar 1868, page 348). [No relinquishment in title to the land applied for can be 
made, unless a local committee is satisfied that no objection has been raised to the 
relinquishment and by means of a measurement made by a sworn surveyor the 
area, location and boundaries of the parcel applied for are recorded]. 
 
According to the minister's report to the Dutch Parliament in 1868, it can be seen that the 

administrative process for release or sale of land with property right was more complete. This 
involved a government apparatus (surveyor), which signified that the issue of property rights 
and their disposal or sale was a legal matter, in this case in the civil sphere. As a consequence, 
the status of absolute property rights (recht van eigendom) was confirmed as a legal right for its 
holder, whether an institution or an individual. 

Based on the Domein Verklaring, the government has the authority to control land and 
then made it into state domain (staatsdomein). When this status is then legalized and recorded 
administratively, the state is recognized as the owner and can sell it or grant it to parties who 
apply to own it under certain requirements. This granting then made it possible to acquire 
absolute property rights (recht van eigendom) status to anyone, especially non-indigenous 
people. This is confirmed in the following regulation. 

 
Het aangevraagd stuk grond wordt op magtiging van de Regeering (indien deze tot den 
afstand in eigendom genegen is en onder voorwaarden, door Haar voor elk afzonderlijk geval 
te stellen, in het openbaar bij opbod verkocht, tenzij wegens bijzondere omstandigheden, 
onderhandsche afstand verkieslijk wordt geacht (Staatsblad van Nederlandsch Indie 1876, 
no. 177). [Parcels of land applied for under the authority of the government (where 
the government allows their disposal in fee simple) and with conditions set by the 
government for each specific case, are sold through open surveillance unless due 
to special circumstances, direct disposal is considered preferable]. 
 
The above provision allows for the birth of absolute property rights, because before this 

right is granted the status of the land is still state domain or even considered free state domain 
(vrije staatsdomein) which only gives the state the authority to control and not to own. 
Therefore, in order to prevent a lawsuit by a party claiming to be its previous owner from 
occurring, the government released the land in an open sale by auction. 

This opportunity appears to have been utilized by many people, especially non-
indigenous, to obtain absolute property rights of the land that guaranteed their lives and 
businesses. Although initially the land area was limited to a maximum of 10 bahus, in reality, 
this restriction was often violated or not strictly enforced. Particularly for applications to 
acquire property rights submitted by business entities, the land required to support their 
business operations often exceeds this limit, while also containing business impact 
consequences. 

As a follow-up to this, on May 1890, a circular letter was issued to all residents in Java 
by the Director of the Interior Government, which contained the following provision, among 
other things. 

 
In verband daarmede wenscht Zijne Excellentie, bij de beoordeeling van aanvragen om 
grond in eigendom, zich voortaan uitsluitend te laten leiden door de overweging of de 
betrekkelijke agrarische bepalingen de uitgifte der begeerde perceelen toelaten (Algemeen 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  77 

Secretarie 1890, no. 1134). [In connection with this, His Excellency (the Governor-
General) wishes that in assessing applications for property rights over plots of land 
in particular can only be guided through consideration of whether the relevant 
agrarian provisions permit the release of the desired plots].  
 
With the above circular letter, it can be seen that the government is emphasing and 

tightening the ownership of land with absolute property rights status, especially within the 
limits of area and risk, particularly when established for industrial purposes by business 
entities. The seriousness of the above issue was then shown by the government through a letter 
from the Secretary of State to the Director of Government a few months after the above circular 
letter was issued. Within this letter, it was noted as follows. 

 
Ook thans nog ligt het in de bedoeling der Regeering dat de aan eenig in eigendom 
aangevraagd perceel te geven bestemming opgegeven en daarmede rekening worde gehouden 
om te kunnen beoordeelen of het perceel in de termen valt van die, bedoeld in het 2 lid van 
artikel 62 van het Regeeringsreglement (Algeemen Secretarie 1890, no. 2375). [It is also 
now the intention of the government to indicate the purpose given to the requested 
parcel as freehold and that is taken in account to assess whether this parcel falls 
within the boundaries referred to in paragraph 2 of article 62 of the Government 
Regulations (ie. the disposal of land in freehold only for the expansion of towns 
and villages and the establishment of industrial infrastructure)]. 
 
The message contained within this letter confirms the government's intention that in 

principle the government has no objection against the disposal of land in absolute property 
right including the sale of the government's own land, as long as it is in accordance with the 
implemented regulations as stated by the Minister of Colonies as follows. 

 
Bij de behandeling van aanvragen om tot het vestige van inrichtingen van nijverheid (of 
van woonhuizen) kleine stukken gouvernementsgrond in eigendom te Erlangen, was soms 
de vraag gerezen of al lieten de agrarische bepalingen de inwilliging toe, de uitgifte wellicht 
zou moeten achterwege blijven wanneer de terrein in verband met bijzondere verordeningen 
of voorschriften geacht werden voor het opgegeven doel niet te kunnen dienen. Ten dien 
opzichte is nu eens vooral beslist dat bij de beoordeeling van aanvragen om afstand van 
grond in eigendom het niet op den weg der Regeering ligt die verzoeken aan andere 
voorschriften dan aan de agrarische bepalingen te toetsen (Koloniaal Verslag over het jaar 
1891, page 94). [In discussing applications to acquire property rights in small plots 
of government land for the construction of industrial infrastructure (or residential 
houses), the question sometimes arises whether (despite the agrarian regulations 
allowing it) the release might have to be postponed when this land is deemed by 
special regulations to be unusable for that purpose. In this connection it is now 
primarily decided that in assessing applications for the release of land with 
proprietary status the government's aim is not to confront these applications with 
any other rules than the agrarian regulations]. 
 
Based on the quote above, it can be seen that only the agrarian regulations provided the 

basis for the granting of property rights to non-indigenous people and business entities, which 
were fully subject to Western law. Through the granting of such status, the right holder was 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  78 

subject to the obligation to pay land tax (grondbelasting) as evidence of the government's 
recognition of his right. 

To calculate the amount of land tax on the sale value of the land subject to the property 
right, the government issued a standard called verponding. Verponding itself was first levied in 
1823 as a form of payment obligation to the government for those who were recognized as 
owning land or real estate (Staatsblad van Nederlandsch Indie 1823, no. 5). In its development, 
verponding became a way to calculate the basic sales value of real estate, the results of which 
were used to calculate the amount of land tax (grondbelasting) (Helder 1925, 35). The sale value 
of these properties was determined at the beginning of the year by considering the condition 
of the real estate. In that year, the percentage of sale value of the land in that condition is 
calculated and the result became the verponding that will be levied as land tax. Until the 
application of new agrarian system by Indonesian government in 1960, the term of verponding 
refers to a tax that collected on immovable property (onroerende goederen) namely land 
(Rabbani, Laturette, and Radjawane 2024, 22). Thus, absolute property rights were considered 
legal within the colonial agrarian system. 
 
Inlandsche Eigendom 
In In addition to the property right (recht van eigendom) that applies to non-indigenous people, 
the Agrarian Law of 1870 also opens up opportunities for indigenous people to acquire land 
property rights. Although in principle it is the same as the property rights held by non-
indigenous people, there are slight differences in its application and implementation, in 
accordance with the purpose of granting the right. The difference lies in the fact that Western’s 
idea shows that the native did not use their land properly fot the sake of their economic 
progress and development (Cameron, Graben, and Napoleon 2020, 16). 

This difference cannot be separated from the origin of indigenous property rights 
(inlandsche eigendom) that prevailed as their agrarian system. Whereas foreigners who came 
to the Indies acquired land in property rights through their purchase of land from the central 
government or though the government of indigenous person (whether a self-government 
ruler, a native ruler, or an indigenous person), the indigenous people acquired their property 
rights by descent and history, hence it is often referred to as agrarische eigendom. As stated 
by C. van Vollenhoven, the indigenous population controls the land of their ancestors, known 
as the first landowner (ontginningsrecht) (van Vollenhoven 1925, 4). From there, communal 
ownership emerged, which was dominated by kinship ties such as family, clan, community, 
and so on. Through this communal ownership, individuals who are part of the social group 
formed through the ties of kinship do not have property rights, but only the right of using the 
land that belongs together. This right of use is individual and hereditary in nature (erfelijk 
individueel gebruiksrecht), but only lasts for a certain period and after the time limit has 
passed, the land will then be exchanged for land controlled by other kinship members. Thus, 
the individual only has the right to harvest and cultivate the land by depositing a portion of 
the produce to the communal bond as a form of obligation as member of the group (van 
Heukelom 1871, 173; van Vollenhoven 1925, 4). 

After some time and in line with the development of this form of group into a simple 
and low-level government unit (kampong and desa) the form of land tenure the individual 
hereditary right of use also experienced changes. Periodic exchanges ceased to be the norm 
and a fixed form of individual hereditary tenure emerged. Due to its fixed nature, this form is 
more similar to ownership (bezit), hence it is more commonly referred to as hereditary 
individual ownership rights (erfelijk individueel bezitrecht) (Ossenbruggen 1909, 2). 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  79 

Through this ownership right, the inheritance of land to descendants as long as they still 
reside and live in the ties of community is guaranteed. Likewise, their right to exploit the land 
and reap the harvest is honored by the social group (desa). Their only obligation is to provide 
a small portion of their land produce and their labor when the village requires it, either 
regularly or incidentally. However, the authority over the land still remains with the 
communal ownership right (communal bezitsrecht), which at any time can revoke it and return 
its status (Heslinga 1928, 20). 

These obligations were perceived by the holders of these ownership rights as an obstacle 
to assert their free and absolute rights over the land. Whatever happened they felt that the 
village remained the owner of the land and that this issue had to change if they were to realize 
their hopes of becoming the absolute owners of the land. This opportunity arose when on 9 
September 1870 the government issued the Agrarian Decree, which contained the following 
provision, among other things. 

 
De regten der Inlandsche bevolking op grond, volgens hare godsdienstige wetten, 
instellingen en gebruiken, worden voor zoover noodig, bij algemene verordening 
omschreven (Staatsblad van Nederlandsch Indie 1870, no. 118). [The rights of the 
indigenous people to land according to their religious laws, traditions and customs 
shall to the extent necessary be recorded in general regulations]. 
 
The regulation was the first step in formalizing the rules that applied to the indigenous 

people in relation to their land rights. From there the opportunity beeame opened to reinforce 
their legal status. With the existence of written law, regulation adjustments (concordance) 
could be made, especially from customary law to Western positive law. With this concordance 
process, the opportunity to change the status of land ownership as held by the indigenous 
people until then (erfelijk individueel gebruik en bezitrecht) could be replaced with a stronger legal 
status, namely eigendom (absolute property rights). This is evident from the following 
provision within the above regulation. 

 
De Inlanders die tot verzekering van hun erfelijk individueel gebruiksregt op grond een 
schriftelijken titel verlangen, worden door den Gouverneur Generaal, zoodra doenlijk, in 
de gelegenheid gesteld dien te verkrijgen. De algemeene verordening, regelende de 
vervanging van inlandsch erfelijk individueel bezit, door eigendom krachtens de vierde 
bepaling der voormelde Wet, wordt door Ons vastgesteld. [Indigenous persons who 
wish to obtain written evidence to confirm their hereditary individual right of use 
to land can on this occasion be granted by the Governor-General as soon as 
possible. The general regulations governing the replacement of hereditary 
indigenous individual ownership with property rights are prescribed by us under 
the fourth provision of the Act]. 
 
This opportunity became wide open through the enactment of legal rules for indigenous 

people to obtain absolute property rights. The aforementioned right was intended to guarantee 
the indigenous people of their absolute ownership and were no longer tied to communal 
group (desa), also to ensure their future prosperity. 

However, the Dutch East Indies government that issued the regulation also was 
involved. This concern arose in relation to the potential that indigenous people who acquired 
absolute property rights would have the opportunity to relinquish them either through sale or 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  80 

pledge in order to obtain loans of credit. If this happened, it was firmly suspected that 
indigenous people would lose the property rights that had been granted, because the process 
of selling off could easily be carried out and legally recognized according to the rules of civil 
law. It can be happened as the village traditional system  is destroyed by crushing its 
landholding pattern, as done by colonial and her ally native elite. It starts with land tenure or 
landholding tnat dominated the village picture (Niel 2022, 187). For this reason, in the 
implementing regulation of the Agrarian Law of 1870, article I contained the following 
provision. 

 
Gronden door inlanders het krachtens de vierde bepaling der Wet 9 April 1870, Indisch 
Staatsblad no. 55, in eigendom verkregen, hetzij in erfelijk individueel gebruik of tijdelijk 
als dessagenooten in de gemeente-gronden bezeten, kunnen aan niet-inlanders worden 
verhuurd volgens de bij deze veordening gestelde regels (Anonim 1872, 61). [Lands 
acquired by indigenous people either under the fourth provision of Law 9 April 
1870, Government Gazette number 55, or in hereditary individual use or held 
temporarily in communal land as village members, can be leased to non-
indigenous people according to the rules set out in this regulation]. 
 
Under the above provision, indigenous people holding this property right (agrarische 

eigendom) could only rent out their land and not sell it, which was also regulated by provisions 
in placed to protect it. This stimulus to obtain the proceeds from the above rentals was the 
main motivation for residents to apply to the government to change the status of their land 
ownership rights into absolute property rights, although different from property rights for 
non-indigenous people. The advantage of this change in status was certainly the freedom to 
enjoy the proceeds without being burdened by the obligation to share with the communal 
group, namely the village (desa). In addition to that, after a few years, many people wanted to 
acquire this absolute property right for fear that they would one day return the land to the 
village as a communal bond, when the village required (Koloniaal Verslag over het jaar 1891, 
page. 93). The issue that arose and was debated among Dutch officials regarding these 
indigenous property rights was whether they were subject to Western civil law or still related 
to the traditional system of land ownership. J. de Louter stated as follows. 

 
De Aldus verworven eigendom is geenszins gelijk aan dien van het Burgerlijke Wetboek en 
wordt daarom agrarische eigendom genoemd. De inlander blijft ten aanzien zijner 
grondrechten in hetzelfde maatschappelijk verband als waarin hij tot dusver leefde (Louter 
1895, 592). [The property rights acquired are not at all the same as property rights 
under the Civil Code and are therefore called agrarian property rights. Indigenous 
people in relation to their land rights continue to have the same social relations as 
they have had up until now]. 
 
According to de Louter, indigenous people can only hold property rights as far as they 

relate to the recognition by the state of their land, and unlike the property rights held by non-
indigenous people in relation to their investment and business operations. The above view of 
de Louter was also indirectly supported by the Minister of Colonial affairs, Franssen van de 
Putte when he blamed the Council of the Dutch East Indies in this view of indigenous property 
rights.  

 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  81 

De Raad (in advise 19 Juli 1872 no. XIV) acht nu dat het Inlandsche eigendomsrecht geheel 
is onttrokken aan het Europeesch burgerlijk recht. Hier moet Ik denken aan een 
misverstand. Toch art 4 zegt dat de Inlander die zijn erfelijk individueel bezitrecht op grond 
door eigendomsrecht heeft doen vervangen, het vrije genoet van en de vrije beschikking over 
den grond heeft, behoudens eenige beperkingen (Landsdrukkerij 1896, 11). [The Council 
(in its advice of 19 July 1872 no. XIV) now considers indigenous property rights to 
be entirely derived from European civil law. Here I am reminded of a 
misunderstanding. But Article 4 says that an indigenous person who replaces his 
hereditary individual ownership rights with a right of property is free to enjoy and 
control his land, besides being subjected to certain restrictions]. 
 
In his commentary, Franssen van de Putte considered that indigenous property rights 

(inlandsche agrarische eigendom) are in fact the right to control and enjoy land products freely 
and separately from communal or village ties, which are also evidenced by the payment of 
verponding as well as absolute property rights. However, in other respects, the holder of an 
indigenous property right did not obtain the freedom and facilities as the holder of absolute 
property right (recht van eigendom) (Asnanda and Cos 2024, 522). 

For the indigenous people themselves who obtained this right and paid its taxes, they 
felt that their rights were the same as the absolute property rights held by non-indigenous 
people. This was according to them proven administratively, by showing proof of their tax 
payments which are different from the verponding file on absolute property rights, as shown 
below. 

 
Het eenige officieele stuk dat door den kleinen man dikwijls met de grootste zorg en 
waakzaamheid wordt bewaard, de petok of pipil of het aanslagbiljet in de landrente dan wel 
Inlandsche Verponding, wordt bijne overal in de jurisprudentie niet beschouwd als een 
bewijs van den eigendom (het bezit) van den grond, hoogstens is het dikwijls beduimelde 
en verkreukelde papiertje belastingplichtigheid van den houder een bewijs. [The only 
official file kept by the common people was often with great care and caution, the 
petok or pipil or land tax bill sheet other than the indigenous verponding, almost 
everywhere in jurisprudence could not be considered proof of land ownership, at 
least often the torn and shabby paper was proof of the holder's tax compliance]. 

 
Some researchers found that this phenomenon is caused by a fact that “Eigendom 

verponding actually refers to the concept of property rights related to land and property 
remains, without any relation to tax as verponding” (Asnanda and Cos 2024, 522). In the above 
quote the term landrente is being used (which literally means land rent) rather than land tax 
(grondbelasting). This shows that the ties between the individual and his land and social group 
still apply. It is also clear from the writing that a tenant considered the payment of land tax as 
the legitimacy of his ownership of the land.  

In addition to the misconception above, these indigenous property right holders were 
also not simply assured of their land ownership. The information below proves this 
emphatically. 

 
De memorie van toelichting geeft daarvoor uitsluitend op de vrees dat de inlander immers 
zoo lang de werking der wet niet in leder opzigt geregeld en verzekerd is, bij de herinnering 
aan willekeurige beschikking over grond en arbeid, het ligt als zeer verstandig zoude 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  82 

rekenen voor een zeker voordeel een nieuw regt prijs te geven, dat het gouvernement heden 
wel schenkt, maar om de miscchien morgen terug te nemen. Moest het argument dienen 
als betoog dat de inlander meer gevaar loop door het gouvernement te worden benadeeld 
dan door Europesche of Chineesche particulieren, zoo zouden wij ons er volkomen mede 
kunnen vereenigen (Gennep 1866, 18). [The explanatory memorandum above only 
points to the fear that indigenous people have for so long not been governed and 
secured by the enactment of laws with arbitrary control of land and labour in 
mind. It seems perfectly reasonable to grant new rights for certain benefits, which 
the government grants today, but may take back tomorrow. If this argument 
asserts that indigenous people feel more in danger of being harmed by the 
government than by Europeans or Chinese, then we seem to agree]. 
 
In the public perception above, it appears that the government was not fully assertive in 

guaranteeing the indigenous property rights in changing their land ownership status. The 
government's hesitation arose from the fear that indigenous people would lose their land if 
given the freedom. In order to prevent this, an indigenous figure, Dwidjosewojo, commented 
at the general meeting of his organisation on 3 September 1924 as follows. 

 
Het Inlandsch grondbezit moet beschermd worden tegen elke poging van niet-inlanders tot 
grond-occupatie. Om dit te bereiken, de volgende middelen gaarne toegepast; verzekering 
van de rechten der Inlandsche landbouwers op den grond. De Regeering regelt het 
individueel bezitsrecht. Het verbod om grondbezit aan niet-inlanders over te dragen blijve 
gehandhaafd. Gronden waarvan de eigenaar niet kan worden vastgesteld, moeten vrij 
staatsdomein worden (“De Javanen en de actie van het IEV” in De Sumatra Post, 18 
September 1924, 5th sheet). [Indigenous land ownership must be protected against 
any attempt by non-indigenous parties to occupy land. To achieve this, the 
following means are applied: guaranteeing indigenous farmers’ rights to land. The 
government regulates individual property rights. The prohibition on transferring 
land ownership to non-natives is maintained. Lands with unclear owners are to 
become free state lands]. 
 
The above assertive view of Dwidjosewojo contains a claim that the government is the 

only party responsible for guaranteeing and protecting the property rights of indigenous 
people to land, although the article does not explicitly state what rights are referred to. In 
response to such condition, the Dutch East Indies government in her last regulation on 
indigenous land property rights stipulated in 1937 the following provision. 

 
Het hoofd van gewestelijk bestuur is bevoegd op het bepaalde bij de le alinea uitzonderingen 
toe te staan voor stukken grond, besteed en gevorderd voor inrichtingen van nijverheid of 
landbouw van gene grotere uitgestrektheid dan tien bouws, voor uitbreiding van bestaande 
samenwoningen van Europeanen or vreemde Oosterlingen of voor andere gewichtige 
doeleinden (Staatsblad van Nederlandsch Indie 1937 no. 373). [The head of the regional 
government is authorised with the exceptions referred to in paragraph 1 to 
authorise devoted and requisitioned plots of land for industrial or agricultural 
infrastructure which do not exceed 10 odours in area, for the expansion of 
European and foreign Easterner settlements or for other important purposes]. 
 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  83 

With the existence of this regulation, regardless of the autonomy of a local government 
the head of the regional government represented the government to authorise the sale of lands 
including indigenous property to non-indigenous people if in his opinion it was necessary. 
This ended the restrictions for indigenous property rights in terms of disposal and transfer of 
rights to non-indigenous people, which had been in place since 1870. 

 
Conclusion  
The description above attempts to highlight the existence of two kinds of land property rights 
that once existed in the history of the development of the agrarian system in Indonesia, and 
which still leave legal issues in the present. A number of civil cases that have been brought 
before the courts and have not been adequately resolved utilising a number of evidence files 
such as those presented in the above paper. This means that the main source of problem lies 
in the system that prevailed in the past, especially in terms of land ownership. 

In the analyses above, it is evident that within Indonesian agrarian historiography two 
kinds of land property rights have been found, apart from ownership right and other right of 
tenure. The first right arose from the Western legal system that had been in force in Europe 
since the 17th century and was later applied in the Dutch East Indies by the VOC during her 
rule. The second right only emerged after the changes in the agrarian system that occurred as 
a consequence of the issuance of the Agrarian Law in 1870. The change in perception and 
system triggered the emergence of a new form of land property right, although it only applied 
to indigenous people. 

Whereas the former land property right is based on the principles of civil rule, the latter 
ownership right is based on Indonesia's indigenous land tenure system as cited by Professor 
van Vollenhoven in his work. In her policy, the Dutch government attempted to distinguish 
between the two, both for her own interests or the interest of the indigenous people 
themselves. However, towards the end of her rule, the similarities between the two were 
unavoidable and this brought consequences when both entered the Indonesian national land 
system enacted since 1945. 
 
References 
Anonim. 1872. “Uitvoering der Agrarische Wet.” Tijdschrift van Nederlandsch-Indië 1: 61. 
Andel, H. M. van. 1857. De onteigening ten algemeenen nut volgens Wet 28 Augustus 1851. Leiden: 

P.H. van den Heuvell. 
Arizona, Yance. 2023. “Indigeneity in the Indonesian Constitution.” In Constitutional 

Democracy in Indonesia, edited by Melissa Crouch, 185–210. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press. 

Asnanda, Anggraini, and Cos. 2024. “Legal Effects on Control of Rights to Land of the Former 
Eigendom Verponding State in Disputes between Heirs of the Muller Family and 
Citizens of Dago Elos Bandung.” Awang Long Law Review 6 (2): 522–535. 

Berg, L. W. C. van den. 1891. “Het eigendomsrecht van den staat op den grond op Java en 
Madoera.” Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië 40: 1–26. 

Bijblad op het Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië. 1834. No. 377. 
Bijblad op het Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië. 1860. No. 778. 
Bijblad op het Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië. n.d. No. 4099. 
Boissevain, J. H. G. 1853. De Wet op de onteigening ten algemeenen nutte van den 28 Augustus 1851 

in hare beginselen en strekking. Arnhem: A. Nijhoff en Zoon. 
Boomgaard, Peter. 2013. Empire and Ecology in the Indonesian Archipelago. Leiden: KITLV Press. 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  84 

Buffart, J. F. A. M. 1932. Het domeinbeginsel in de agrarische wetgeving van Nederlandsch-Indië. Den 
Helder: C. de Boer. 

Cameron, Angela, Sari Graben, and Val Napoleon. 2020. “Introduction: The Role of Indigenous 
Law in the Privatization of Lands.” In Creating Indigenous Property: Power, Rights, and 
Relationships, 1–24. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 

Day, Clive. 1904. The Policy and Administration of the Dutch in Java. New York: Macmillan. 
De Indische Courant. 1937. “Inlandsche Grondrechten.” August 7. 
De Louter, J. 1895. Handleiding tot de kennis van het staats- en administratief recht van Nederlandsch-

Indië. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. 
De Sumatra Post. 1924. “De Javanen en de actie van het IEV.” September 18. 
Gennep, J. van. 1866. Het ontwerp van wet tot vaststelling der gronden waarop ondernemingen van 

landbouw en nijverheid in Nederlandsch-Indië. Batavia: H.M. van Dorp. 
Gottschalk, Louis. 1986. Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method. New York: Alfred 

A. Knopf. 
Hageman, J. 1860. “Geschied- en aardrijkskundig overzicht van Java op het einde der 

achttiende eeuw.” Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 9 (3): 364–365. 
Harto Juwono. 2023. Hak milik atas tanah: Memahami sistem agraria di era Hindia Belanda. Solo: 

Selaklali. 
Heslinga, J. H. 1928. De rechten op grond en water op Java en Madoera. Weltevreden: Boekhandel 

Visser. 
Heukelom, C. van. 1871. “De Agrarische Wet en hare uitvoering.” Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-

Indië 1: 173–195. 
Houben, Vincent J. H. 2003. “Colonial History and Historiography.” In Indonesia in Transition, 

edited by Henk Schulte Nordholt, 27–48. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. 
Indisch Genootschap. 1866. Beraadslaging over het gouvernements cultuurstelsel op Java ook in 

verband met het wetsontwerp. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. 
Iswahyudi. 2020. “The Implementation of the Cultuurstelsel in Java.” Britain International of 

Humanities and Social Science Journal 2 (3): 466–480. 
Juwono, Harto. 2023. Hak milik atas tanah: Memahami sistem agraria di era Hindia Belanda. Solo: 

Selaklali. 
Kemper, Gerrit de Bosch. 1866. De concessien volgens de Nederlandsche recht. Amsterdam: 

Johannes Muller. 
Koloniaal Verslag. 1868. Koloniaal Verslag over het jaar 1868. ’s-Gravenhage. 
Koloniaal Verslag. 1891. Koloniaal Verslag over het jaar 1891. ’s-Gravenhage. 
Koopmans, Joop W. 2016. Historical Dictionary of the Netherlands. London: Rowman & 

Littlefield. 
Neilson, Jeffrey. 2020. “Domein Verklaring: Colonial Legal Legacies and Communities’ Access 

to Land in Indonesia.” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, November. 
Nota over de ontginning van grond door inlanders op Java en Madoera. 1896. Batavia: 

Landsdrukkerij. 
Nota over de verpondingsbelasting. 1925. Den Helder: C. de Boer Jr. 
Ossenbruggen, F. D. E. van. 1909. De regeling van het desabeheer en die van het credietverband. 

Magelang: H.V. Marech. 
Pratama, Hafids Indra, and Gunawan Jayaputra. 2024. “Long Standing of Land Rights 

Certificate on Eigendom Verponding Land.” Journal of Law, Politics and Humanities 5 (1): 
284–296. 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 9 (1), 69-85 © 2025 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

Recht van Eigendom and Inlandsch Eigendom: A Study of Landownership in Colonial Indonesia |  85 

Rabbani, Ahmad Rafi, Adonia Ivonne Laturette, and Poeter Radjawane. 2024. “Perlindungan 
Hukum terhadap Pemegang Hak Eigendom Verponding.” Pattimura Law Study Review 
2 (1): 22–35. 

Riesz, C. H. F. 1884. De particuliere landerijen en het erfpachtsrecht. Batavia: G. Kolff. 
Sens, Johannes Baptist. 1934. Eigendom van zaken, voor den openbaren dienst bestemd. Nijmegen: 

N.V. Uitgeversmaatschappij. 
Sjamsuddin, Helius. 2016. Metodologi sejarah. Yogyakarta: Ombak. 
Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië. 1823. No. 5. 
Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië. 1836. No. 119. 
Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië. 1855. No. 2. 
Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië. 1863. No. 90. 
Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië. 1864. No. 6. 
Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië. 1866. No. 25. 
Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië. 1870. No. 118. 
Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië. 1871. No. 163. 
Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië. 1876. No. 177. 
Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië. 1937. No. 373. 
Tosh, John. 2015. The pursuit of history. 6th ed. London: Routledge. 
Van de Veer, K. 1919. Agrarische regelingen. Buitenzorg: The Tjeng Goey. 
Van Niel, Robert. 2022. Java under the Cultivation System. Leiden: KITLV Press. 
Vollenhoven, Cornelis van. 1925. De Indonesiërs en hun grond. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 
Winckel, Christiaan Philip Karel. 1863. De Raad van Nederlandsch-Indië. Utrecht: A. van Dorsten. 
  


