Asas pemisahan horisontal tersirat dalam Pasal 5 UUPA "Hukum agraria yang berlaku atas tanah, air dan ruang angkasa adalah hukum adat, sepanjang tidak bertentangan dengan kepentingan nasional dan negara, berdasarkan persatuan bangsa, dengan sosialisme Indonesia dan dengan peraturan yang tertuang dalam undang-undang ini serta peraturan perundang-undagan lainnya". Sedangkan dalam kasus di Kecamatan Putri Betung Kabupaten Gayo Lues dalam penyelesaian sengketa antara pemilik tanah dan pemilik benda yang ada di atasnya. Asas pemisahan horisontal belum diterapkan secara maksimal karena minimnya pengetahuan masyarakat tentang hal tersebut. Penelitian dalam studi ini dilakukan secara kualitatif dengan pendekatan yuridis sosiologis. Jenis penelitian merupakan penelitian deskriptif-analisis dengan menggunakan tipe penelitian lapangan, kegiatan lapangan dilakukan dengan melalui wawancara dan penelitian pustaka yang bertujuan untuk memberikan hasil analisa yang menyangkut objek yang diteliti berdasarkan hukum positif. penelitian ini menemukan hasil bahwa penerapan asas pemisahan horisontal di Kecamatan Putri Betung Kabupaten Gayo Lues tidak secara maksimal. Hambatan yang terjadi dalam penyelesaian sengketa adalah pihak bersengketa tidak menerima kesepakatan, adanya iktikad tidak baik, sulitnya menemukan saksi dan minimnya pengetahuan masyarakat mengenai kedudukan asas pemihan horisontal. Dan upaya yang dilakukan untuk mengatasi hambatan penyelesaian sengketa tersebut adalahpara pihak dipaksa tunduk dengan putusan yang ditetapkan oleh kepala desa, pendekatan secara personal dilakukan oleh kepala desa kepada pihak yang melekukan iktikad tidak baik, memanfaatkan masyarakat yang mengetahui permasalahan sebagai saksi, dan para pihak yang menyelesaiakan sengkata meskipun minimnya pengetahuanya mengenai asas pemisahan horisontal tersebut.

This study aims to identify and analyze and explain the application of Article 7 of Law No. 56 Prp of 1960 in the implementation of agricultural land mortgages, analyze the obstacles to the application of Article 7 of Law No. 56 Prp of 1960, and analyze the efforts made in overcoming obstacles to the application of Article 7 Law 56 Prp of 1960. The implementation of pawning agricultural land is not in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of Law Number 56 Prp of 1960, the community keeps pawning by not returning agricultural land to its owner even though it has passed the limit on the use of agricultural land. The method used in this study is an empirical juridical approach, with a qualitative legal research type, the legal source used is through field research. The results of this study indicate that the application of Article 7 of Law Number 56 Prp of 1960 in the implementation of land pawning is not appropriate. Barriers to the implementation of Article 7 of Law No. 56 Prp of 1960 are the public's ignorance of Article 7 of Law No. 56 Prp of 1960, the factor that there is no special implementing qanun that regulates the pawning of agricultural land in Aceh and the factor of low public awareness of the law. Efforts that can be made to overcome these obstacles are adding new regulations regarding the application of Article 7 of Law Number 56 Prp of 1960 in each region the existing implementing qanun, conducting negotiations and mediation. Keywords: Implemention of Pawn, Land.

Abandoned land is land that has been granted rights by the state in the form of Ownership Rights, Business Utilization Rights, Building Use Rights, Use Rights and Management Rights, or basic control over land that is not cultivated, not used, or not utilized in accordance with the circumstances or the nature and purpose. granting rights or the basis for their control. The definition of abandoned land is not regulated in Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 11 of 2010 concerning Control and Utilization of Abandoned Land (“PP No. 11/2010”). However, it is regulated in Article 1 point 6 of the Regulation of the Head of the National Land Agency of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4 of 2010 concerning Procedures for Controlling Abandoned Land.The results of the study explain that the judge with his considerations in the case related to the transfer of rights to abandoned land belonging to state-owned enterprises in the decision Number: 3/Pdt.G/2011/PN-Lsm The judge considered that the problem in the abandoned domain was absolutely not the authority of the lhokseumawe district court. However, in the State Administrative Court, because the plaintiff in his case mentioned the ownership assets of the land. Thus, the judge rejected all of the plaintiffs' claims.