The Mandalika land dispute, and what it means if you're buying

What happened, in plain terms

Building the Mandalika zone required moving people who were already living and working on the land. That process is documented, and it has been contested.

A government census in March 2021 identified 190 affected families. The authorities report that 121 households were relocated to Ngolang village with compensation. Fisherfolk without formal title were offered compensation per house; cultivators were compensated per square metre.

In March 2022 the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty, Olivier De Schutter, sent a formal letter to Indonesia; it was made public that May. It stated that 100 or more families were reportedly still living inside the project area and facing risk of forced eviction, and that of the 121 households in the compensation agreement, 54 had not been paid as of May 2022. It also noted that the 2012 Land Acquisition Law the government relied on offers weaker procedural protection than international human rights standards. The affected communities are largely Sasak — the Indigenous people of Lombok — and fisherfolk. Reporting here.

The state developer's position is that acquisitions followed Indonesian law and that compensation was paid. Both accounts are on the record. We are not going to adjudicate them for you.

Why we publish this

Two reasons, and neither is activism.

The first is that you would find it anyway, probably after you had paid, and finding it then is worse.

The second is that it is operationally useful. This dispute is a live demonstration of the single most expensive mistake a foreign buyer makes in Indonesia: assuming that a certificate settles the question of who has a claim on a piece of land.

The thing it should change about how you buy

In Indonesia, a paper title and physical possession are two different facts, and the second one is harder to fix.

Customary — adat — claims can coexist with a registered certificate. Someone farming a plot for thirty years may hold no document and still hold a claim a court will hear, and will certainly hold one the neighbours recognise. A plot you cannot occupy is not a plot you own in any way that matters.

So the standard check list is not enough. Add these three:

• Go and stand on it. Not a photo, not a drone shot. Who is on the land today? Is anyone farming it, grazing on it, living on it, tying a boat up on it?
• Ask the neighbours who they think owns it. In a village this is not a mysterious question and you will get an answer. If their answer is not the name on the certificate, stop.
• **Have the notaris search for pending claims, not just verify the certificate.** These are different jobs. Ask for the second one explicitly and in writing.

Where this leaves the investment case

Nowhere, honestly. The zone is real, the infrastructure is poured, and the investment is signed. A land conflict during a large state development is not evidence the development fails; it is evidence that the land was worth something to somebody before you arrived.

What it should do is kill any temptation to buy a plot you have not stood on, from a seller who is impatient about your questions, using a notary they picked.

The step-by-step checks are in our guide, and the notaries and lawyers we have verified are in the directory. Both are free.