Friday, 23 October 2026
MEDAN | INDATANEWS.COM - The eviction of a house claimed by Indonesian state railway company PT Kereta Api Indonesia (Persero), commonly known as PT KAI, as an asset belonging to its Regional Division I in North Sumatra, descended into tense scenes on Tuesday, 20 October 2026. The property is located at 27A Jalan Kemuning, in the Perintis neighbourhood, Medan Timur district, Medan. Tensions arose when the eviction team attempted to enter the house occupied by Rahmat Taufik. The incident reportedly involved threats to set the building on fire and the use of a bladed weapon.
The Budi Dharma law firm, acting as legal counsel for PT KAI's Regional Division I in North Sumatra, accompanied the eviction of the house registered under asset number DW.100A. According to observations at the scene, the situation escalated when the team attempted to enter the property.
The occupant allegedly sprayed petrol and threatened to set the team alight if its members entered the premises. The confrontation subsequently intensified, with both sides reportedly pushing one another before the team managed to open the property's gate.
However, opening the gate did not immediately calm the situation. The occupant reportedly lit a torch again and pointed it towards the eviction team. The officers eventually secured the torch, allowing the eviction to proceed.
Tensions flared once more when the occupant retreated into a room at a guesthouse beside the main building and locked himself inside. After the door was opened, a man wearing a white T-shirt was seen waving a machete. The team subsequently took the weapon from him and secured it.
The eviction was eventually completed without further incidents. Nevertheless, the confrontation highlights the tensions that can arise when property claims are enforced, particularly when occupants dispute the legal basis for a property's ownership or use.
Budi Dharma, director of the law firm bearing his name and legal representative for PT KAI's Regional Division I in North Sumatra, said the company had initiated the eviction only after taking several steps to assert its claim over the asset.
According to Budi, Agus Setiawan, the manager responsible for asset protection at PT KAI, had examined the property's status using historical records. These included the 1918 Grondkaart IJ 135e D.S.M.W.W. and the AT-8 book containing the results of an inventory of land fixed assets belonging to the former state railway company Perumka in North Sumatra, dated 30 June 1997.
Budi explained that the house had originally been designated as official accommodation for Muhammad Saleh Yunus, an employee of the railway company. After Yunus retired, the building continued to be occupied, with its use gradually passing to family members over time.
The occupants subsequently constructed additional structures on the property, which they used to provide rented rooms and operate a small stall. According to Budi, these activities had continued for an extended period without an official tenancy agreement or cooperation arrangement with PT KAI.
Budi also cited a permanent plaque attached to the house wall as physical evidence supporting the company's ownership claim. According to the company, the plaque identifies the building as one of PT KAI's registered assets.
"There is even a kind of permanent plaque on the house wall registering the asset as PT KAI property. The building was constructed in 1954. This plaque cannot be denied or removed by the occupants and shows that the house is an asset belonging to PT KAI," Budi said.
Budi said PT KAI had initially asked the occupants to return the company's property or formally apply to rent it. Before proceeding with the eviction, the company issued three warning letters dated 2, 9 and 15 October 2026.
Andri Hardianto, deputy head of PT KAI's Regional Division I in North Sumatra, electronically signed all three letters. They gave the occupants different deadlines either to submit an official rental application or to vacate the property.
The first warning provided seven calendar days to comply. The second set a deadline of five working days, while the third allowed three working days.
According to Budi, no tenancy agreement between the occupants and PT KAI had been signed by the time the eviction took place. The company therefore proceeded with the action following the administrative steps it had undertaken.
Budi stressed that the measure was intended to protect company assets which, in PT KAI's view, continued to be used by individuals without an official contractual arrangement with the company.
The warning letters also referred to Minister of State-Owned Enterprises Regulation No. PER-2/MBU/03/2023 and several circulars issued by the Minister of State-Owned Enterprises concerning the protection, certification and management of state-owned enterprise assets.
Rahmat Taufik had previously stated that he possessed documents supporting his right to use the house. His claim is a significant part of the dispute surrounding the property on Jalan Kemuning.
However, the information currently available does not specify the nature of those documents, their origin or the legal grounds on which Rahmat bases his claim to the property. His assertions therefore require further explanation and examination to enable the public to gain a comprehensive understanding of the dispute.
Likewise, the historical and administrative records cited by PT KAI's legal representative should be understood as the basis for the company's ownership claim. A comprehensive legal assessment would need to consider the relevant documents held by both parties, the property's history of occupation and the applicable laws and regulations.
The incident demonstrates the importance of transparency when state-owned enterprises enforce property claims, particularly when occupants also maintain that they have a legal basis for using the property. An approach grounded in evidence and legal procedures, while ensuring the safety of everyone involved, is essential to preventing similar disputes in the future.
Following the completion of the eviction, PT KAI, through its legal representative, stated that it had carried out the prescribed steps to enforce its claim over the asset. Further information about the documents presented by Rahmat Taufik, together with a direct response concerning PT KAI's ownership claim, remains outstanding and is needed to complete the reporting in a balanced manner. (IDNC)
REPORTER: Ahmad Zulfikar | EDITOR: Fik Sagala
