The suggestion to retain under adat law land to be allocated for Indo-Europeans
and European blijvers resonated with the IEV’s initial promise to honour adat obligations
if given the rights to own. However, this suggestion had other profound consequences.
Keeping the land under adat law meant that the new non-native holders
were bound to pay taxes and undertake social obligations attached to the land according
to adat law regulations, which differed radically from Europeans’. It implied that
non-native owners would have to deal with native officials for their day-to-day operations.
Further, keeping the land under adat law was a pragmatic recommendation
because the land could easily revert back to the native landholders without complicated
legal entanglements that would ensue had the land been put under Dutch eigendom.
Finally, disputes would be resolved at the Landraad, the native Court of the first
instance, a jurisdiction considered inferior to a European court.