Forensic Cadastre Approach in Resolving Land Disputes: Majalengka Regency as Case Study

Comments 1: [Line 108 – Please remove the hyphens surrounding the words forensic cadastre]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, and we have changed the hyphens in paragraph 2 line 101, p.3.

Comments 2: [Figure 2 – Please ensure that the font of the words in the figure is consistent. Note that some letters overlap the lines, making them difficult to read.]

Response 2: Agree. We have revised Figure 2 to ensure consistent font and improve readability by adjusting overlapping letters. The revised manuscript this change can be found on p.6.

Comments 3: [Table 1 – The total number of cases from 2012 to 2024 is 19. It would be helpful to also include the number of cases for each case type.]

Response 3: Agree. We have added the number of cases for each case type to provide more detailed information. The revised manuscript this change can be found in Table 1, p.7.

Comments 4: [Line 246 – Please indicate the table number.]

Response 4: Agree. We have added the appropriate table number for clarity.  The revised manuscript this change can be found in paragraph 3 line 243, p.7.

Comments 5: [Table 2 – Please specify in the caption that the seven categories refer to technical complaints.]

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. We have clarified in the caption of Table 2 that the seven categories refer to technical complaints. This change can be found in the revised manuscript in line 252, p.7.

Comments 6: [Figure 3 – The legend is unclear; please increase the font size of the labels for better readability.]

Response 6: Thank you for your feedback. The font size of the labels in the legend of Figure 3 has been increased for better readability. You can find the updated version on p.11.

Comments 7: [Figure 4 – Please indicate the land anomalies classes in full. Additionally, it appears that the number of cases in the Majalengka Regency area from 2021 to 2024 is three. Why are there decimal numbers on the x-axis if it is meant to represent the number of cases?.]

Response 7: Thank you for your feedback. We agree with your suggestion and have revised Figure 4 in the manuscript to emphasize this point. The error has been addressed, and the x-axis now displays integer values only. This update can be found in the revised manuscript on p.11.

Comments 8: [Table 3 – It is recommended to include the descriptions directly in the table rather than referring to letters (a) to (i). Additionally, the table uses both dashes and the letter x. What does x represent? If x indicates "missing," it would be clearer to leave the cell empty.]

Response 8: Agree. We have, accordingly, changed to emphasize this point. The letter x was previously used to indicate the unavailability of the document. To enhance clarity, the corresponding cells have now been left blank. The revised manuscript this change can be found on p.13.

Comments 9: [Table 4 – The table uses both dashes and the letter x. What does x represent? If x indicates "missing," it would be clearer to leave the cell empty.]

Response 9: Agree. We have, accordingly, changed to emphasize this point. The letter x was previously used to indicate the unavailability of the document. To enhance clarity, the corresponding cells have now been left blank. The revised manuscript this change can be found on pp.13-14.

Comments 10: [Table 6 – It is recommended to include the descriptions directly in the table rather than referring to letters (a) to (g). Additionally, the table uses both dashes and the letter x. What does x represent? If x indicates "missing," it would be clearer to leave the cell empty.]

Response 10: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised to emphasize this point. The letter x was previously used to indicate the unavailability of the document. To enhance clarity, the corresponding cells have now been left blank.  The revised manuscript this change can be found on pp.15-16.

Comments 11: [Line 477 – Please correct the table numbers; they should be 7 and 8.]

Response 11: Agree. We have, accordingly, done to emphasize this point. The revised manuscript this change can be found paragraph 4 line 469, p.16.

Comments 12: [Line 485 – Please correct the table number; it should be 9.]

Response 12: Agree. We have, accordingly, done to emphasize this point.

The revised manuscript this change can be found paragraph 1 line 477, p.18.

Comments 13: [Line 488 – Please correct the table number; it should be 9.]

Response 13: Agree. We have, accordingly, done to emphasize this point.

The revised manuscript this change can be found paragraph 1 line 480, p.19.

Comments 14: [Line 500 – Please correct the table number; it should be 10.]

Response 14: Agree. We have, accordingly, done to emphasize this point.

The revised manuscript this change can be found paragraph 2 line 492, p.19.

Comments 15: [Line 515 – Please correct the table number; it should be 11.]

Response 15: Agree. We have, accordingly, done to emphasize this point.

The revised manuscript this change can be found paragraph 2 line 512, p.20.

Comments 16: [Paragraph 3.7 – Was the Cronbach’s Alpha value calculated using specific software? If so, please indicate the software used in the paragraph.]

Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. We have, accordingly, revised to emphasize this point. Therefore, we have added another sentence to connect the ideas in paragraph 1 line 568, p.22.

“The validity and reliability tests of the questionnaire used for the validation process were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics. ”

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The language is clear, but I suggest a minor revision of certain parts that could be made more effective.

Response 1:  We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve the clarity and quality of the English language. We have carefully reworded several sentences to ensure that the language more clearly communicates our research. We hope that the revised version meets the expected standards.

From a relatively novel perspective — the forensic cadastre — the authors propose a method or process for resolving land disputes. The innovation of integrating legal procedures into cadastre management to address land disputes is indeed commendable. However, I still harbor doubts regarding its broad applicability, as land disputes are managed through diverse approaches across different countries and regions. Moreover, the manuscript focuses more on the technical aspects of land boundary determination, while the content appears somewhat outdated for this type of research. This discrepancy creates a mismatch between the title and the actual content of the article. Additionally, the manuscript requires substantial improvements in terms of relevant research, methodologies, and experimental design.

Comments 1: [Give a more detailed introduction to "forensic cadastre" and cite key documents. It would be helpful to include sections on relevant literature reviews so readers can better grasp the concept]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added another sentence to connect the ideas in paragraph 1 line 98-102, p.3.

“When cadastral information is used in a legal context or for dispute resolution, this information becomes part of a forensic practice known as forensic cadastral. This approach aims to ensure accurate identification of land boundaries, provide evidence that is acceptable in court, and analyze cases such as land encroachment or illegal land use [38]–[40].”

Comments 2: [Please provide a clearer version of Figure 2, as it’s currently hard to make out the details in the image.]

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have, accordingly, revised the Figure 2 to emphasize this point on p.6.

Comments 3: [In Section 2, you’ve referenced many processes. Could you explain what specific innovations or values your methods bring?]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added another sentence to connect the ideas in paragraph 3 line 110-118, p.3.

“Earlier investigations revealed that the use of forensic cadastre was confined to field identification and data verification, lacking a thorough framework for assessing evidence [42], [43]. Meanwhile, other research provided a wide range of methods, such as document reviews, field inspections, and the creation of conflict resolution suggestions [41]. However, these processes did not fully conform to the core tenets of forensic science, which are identification, recognition, individualization, and interpretation.  Furthermore, to ensure procedural accuracy and the importance of recommended actions, each stage of the forensic cadastre process must be validated by experts in the cadastral field”

Comments 4: [On Line 390, does your research only rely on cadastral graphical means to resolve disputes? Does this approach stray from the core value of forensic cadastre?.]

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. The misunderstanding occurred due to the title of Figure 4 in line 390, p.11. Therefore, we have corrected the title. Figure 4 in this paper simply illustrates the number of technical land dispute cases in Majalengka Regency from 2021 to 2024, which have been classified into seven categories based on anomaly types according to the technical instructions (juknis) for improving the quality of spatial land issue data.

Comments 5: [On Line 403, during the process, the graph seems to have shifted significantly. Will this affect neighboring lands?.]

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added another sentence to give an explanition for this context in paragraph 1 line 393-402, p.12.

" Both cases had similar issues, namely the applicants claimed that the boundary of the respondent's land violated their land boundary, based on the land plot map accessed through the Bumi ATR/BPN website (https://bhumi.atrbpn.go.id/). This dispute is relatively easy to resolve because it only involves two parties (the applicant and the respondent) and does not involve state-owned land. The issue was caused by a graphic mapping error that did not affect the area of land owned by the parties or the neighboring lands. Through the mediation process, it was agreed that the land boundaries would be determined according to each party's certificate, without any change in area, only positional adjustments.With this agreement, both parties feel that they are not at a disadvantage.”

Comments 6: [From Line 433 to Line 508, the manuscript goes into great detail about Case 2, including the materials provided or missing. Can you clarify which materials are essential and why?]

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. In lines 433 to 508 (from the original manuscript), three stages are thoroughly described: historical investigation, boundary analysis, and individualization. Essential materials and steps are then explained as follow:

Historical Investigation: “Among the four components of historical investigation, the most crucial is proof of ownership, as it serves as the legal basis for the issuance of ownership rights. Proof of ownership documentation may take various forms, as outlined in the categories presented in Table 4” The revised manuscript this added sentences can be found in paragraph 1 line 437-440, p.15.

Boundary Analysis: “Each document listed in Table 6 plays an equally important role in boundary analy-sis, as boundary determination requires not only quantitative data but also visual evidence and the involvement of authorized parties to define and verify boundaries. “

The revised manuscript this added sentences can be found in paragraph 1 line 453-455, p.16.

Individualization: “Among the four aspects analyzed during the individualization stage, structure and design are the most critical, as they play a key role in identifying the relevant parties and determining the procedural mechanisms for land certificate issuance. The land certificate itself serves as the primary legal instrument that establishes the legitimacy of land ownership.”

The revised manuscript this added sentences can be found in paragraph 1 line 501-505, p.20.

Comments 7: [From Line 529 to Line 533, the final advices is still vague. Does it truly address the dispute effectively?.]

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added clearer and more detailed recommendations in paragraph 1 line 519-538, pp. 20-21.

Comments 8: [If expert judgment is used starting at Line 509, ethical approval and original evaluation materials (like questionnaires) and the process of the evaluation should also be detailed.]

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We have, accordingly, revised to emphasize this point. Therefore, we have added another sentence to connect the ideas in paragraph 3 line 540-546, p. 21. “The validation process of this study involved 43 respondents consisting of practitioners in the field of cadastre and decision-makers. The main objective is to ensure that each stage based on forensic science and engineering can be applied in the cadastral forensic process. Validation is conducted through Google Forms with a rating scale of 1 to 4, where a score of 1 indicates incompatibility and a score of 4 reflects a high level of suitability. Thus, this validation aims to ensure that the stages of forensic science and forensic engineering are relevant in the context of cadastre to address land dispute issues. “

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 1:   We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve the clarity and quality of the English language. We have carefully reworded several sentences to ensure that the language more clearly communicates our research. We hope that the revised version meets the expected standards.