Many historians, including Niall Ferguson in his book “Civilisation: The West and the Rest”, have often cited the importance of property rights and how fair distribution of property is one of the reasons for the success of the West. In advanced democracies, land ownership empowers the electorate, but in Pakistan, this power remains contested. Since its inception, Pakistan has struggled to implement meaningful land reforms, leading to unfair distribution of property among its citizens. Pakistan’s inability to enact suitable land reforms has also left billions of rupees worth of state land trapped in unlawful occupation. This failure has fueled corruption and conflict, resulting in enormous losses to the national exchequer. Ambiguous property rights have weakened governance structures and drained public trust, creating a landscape where disputes overwhelm courts, drive away investment, and choke urban development.
Property is not just a legal issue; it is an economic one as well. Property disputes overwhelm the courts, drive away investment (both foreign and domestic), and choke urban development. Accusations of arbitrary Police intervention, manipulation of land records, and unfair bias in settlements are common and the undocumented nature of encroachments places entire sectors outside the tax net. Instead of resolution, these disputes feed years of litigation. Most cases remain unresolved, draining court time and public trust. Pakistan’s conviction rate is estimated to be as low as 5% to 10% in regulatory and land-related matters.
This governance crisis is rooted in history. In 2001, Pakistan’s Devolution of Power Plan stripped District Commissioners (DCs) and Assistant Commissioners (ACs) of their magisterial powers, leaving them to administer without enforcement authority. Laws remained on paper, but the ability to act on them disappeared, creating a vacuum that has plagued governance ever since. Recognising this enforcement gap, Punjab took an audacious step in November 2024 by establishing the Punjab Enforcement and Regulatory Authority (PERA).
The Chief Minister’s direct involvement as Chairperson, supported by the Chief Secretary as Vice Chairperson, signals a rare level of political will for reform. Furthermore, its operations are headed by a seasoned bureaucrat known for his technical expertise and digitisation merits; a man of action who has consistently spearheaded digital transformation wherever he has served, and whose style of governance is marked by clarity, control, and attention to operational detail. It is often said internally that nothing escapes his desk.
All operations are recorded using body cameras with live audio and video, creating real-time evidentiary trails and ensuring procedural fairness
With far-reaching powers, PERA simply acts as an enforcement arm of the DC, without creating jurisdictional conflicts with other government functions. The Act mandates the establishment of District Enforcement and Regulatory Boards, chaired by the DC and comprising the district police, prosecutors, and department heads for scheduled laws like land revenue and price control. These Boards provide operational clarity and cross-functional collaboration while preserving the leadership of the district administration. The addition of prosecutors, further elaborates how the government is on-boarding legal experts to hasten the litigation processes. As of now, 154 prosecutors are being recruited through a transparent process, marking a giant leap forward toward good governance.
PERA’s operational scope encompasses four critical functions: price control, anti-hoarding enforcement, land dispute resolution, and anti-encroachment operations. These functions address some of the most economically and politically sensitive issues in Punjab’s governance ecosystem. From stabilising supply chains and detecting price inflation to reclaiming state land and formalising informal vendors, PERA’s scope is as ambitious as it is necessary.
A useful parallel can be drawn from Singapore’s transformation in the 1960s and 70s, when the state faced similar challenges; widespread land encroachments, unregulated hawkers, and fragmented enforcement. Rather than relying solely on coercion, Singapore pursued a disciplined, politically backed, and legally clear enforcement model that gradually relocated informal vendors into regulated hawker centers, reclaimed state land, and formalised previously undocumented sectors. The result was not just urban order but enhanced tax compliance, better service delivery, and institutional credibility. PERA’s design, centered on ethical enforcement, digital transparency, and administrative clarity, places Punjab on a comparable path, signaling a shift from informal chaos to structured governance.
Its most transformative feature circles around ethical enforcement. Enforcement Stations have been established at the sub-divisional level, led by Sub-Divisional Enforcement Officers, and supported by investigation teams. These officers have the power to arrest offenders, seal illegal premises, confiscate goods, impose fines, and present violators before magistrates. However, what differentiates PERA from legacy enforcement bodies is its reliance on transparency and digitisation.
All operations are recorded using body cameras with live audio and video, creating real-time evidentiary trails and ensuring procedural fairness. This system strengthens the credibility of enforcement, facilitates smoother appeals, and reduces discretion-based abuse. It also reflects the broader push toward e-governance, where transparency and accountability are embedded into service delivery systems.
Another institutional innovation is PERA’s whistleblower mechanism, which allows citizens to anonymously report violations. Protected by law and eligible for rewards in valid cases, whistleblowers now become partners in governance. At the same time, penalties for false or malicious reporting help preserve the system’s integrity.
One of the most important structural shifts is that enforcement communication now originates directly from PERA, not from the District Management offices. This formal separation between regulatory enforcement and traditional law-and-order operations minimises the misuse of Police in civil disputes while empowering administrative officers to act swiftly and within defined legal frameworks.
The economic implications of PERA’s work are significant. Billions of rupees in state land are tied up in illegal occupation. Recovering and formalising these spaces can unlock substantial fiscal value, enable tax collection, and restore the rule of law in urban planning. Formalising informal vendors, for example, may integrate them into the tax net, improve their security, and strengthen municipal governance.
PERA is not a cosmetic reform or mere lip service. It is a structural innovation; a legal and administrative bridge between regulatory authority and on-ground action. In a country where laws are often divorced from enforcement, PERA is a rare case of institutional design matching operational needs.
Other provinces are already observing Punjab’s model with keen interest. If implemented with fidelity, PERA could become a national template—showing how ethical enforcement, digitised operations, and political will can converge to restore administrative order and resolve property disputes with ease.
In the end, Pakistan’s governance challenge is not always a lack of laws; it is the inability to enforce them fairly. PERA is a chance to change that by setting an example in the most populous province of Pakistan. Whether it succeeds will ultimately depend on its ability to stay true to its founding principles: transparency, discipline, and institutional courage.