Click here to Visit the RBI’s new website


PDF document (452 kb)
Date : Jan 24, 2024
II. Fiscal Position of Panchayati Raj Institutions

1. Introduction

2.1 The Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) are entrusted with planning and implementing various essential services and developmental activities in rural areas. An analysis of their fiscal situation is, however, constrained by the non-availability of consolidated data. This chapter attempts to address this concern by analysing Panchayat finances across 26 States/UTs for 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. The rest of this chapter is structured into three sections. Section 2 examines fiscal outcomes for the period of reference. Section 3 discusses the financing of Panchayats through grants. Section 4 summarises the key findings.

2. The State of Panchayat Finances

2.2 The Panchayats are constituted in a three-tier structure, i.e., village, intermediate and district level. At the village level, there is a Gram Sabha, consisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls in a village within the Panchayat. The village directly elects the Chairperson of the Panchayat. Currently, there are more than 2.55 lakh village Panchayats in the country (Table II.1).

2.3 In consultation with stakeholders, the Ministry of Panchayati Raj (MoPR) has formulated a simplified format of accounts for PRIs to exercise better accountability and transparency. In this system, the functions of the Panchayats, as enumerated in the 11th Schedule of the Constitution, are represented through a four-digit major code classification (Annex) and a second three-digit minor head classification.

Table II.1: Number of Panchayats
Sr. No Units Number
(As of Dec. 31, 2022)
1. Number of Village Panchayats 2,55,623
2. Number of Intermediate Panchayats 6,697
3. Number of District Panchayats 665
Source: Annual Report 2022-23, Ministry of Panchayati Raj (MoPR).

2.4 Panchayats’ information on receipts and payments is provided to the MoPR in this format, and it is accessible to the public through the eGramSwaraj portal. The coverage of the number of village Panchayats reporting the data has improved over time - the number of Panchayats reporting data on the portal during the last three years has averaged 2.43 lakh and 2.36 lakh for revenue receipts and expenditure, respectively, covering more than 90 per cent of total village Panchayats in the country. The number for revenue expenditure is lower due to non-reporting of data by some Panchayats, and the gap has narrowed in recent years. The number of Panchayats reporting data for capital receipts and capital expenditure is less. Hence, the analysis in this Report is mainly restricted to revenue receipts and revenue expenditure. Furthermore, the reporting of data is not consistent across the years, with instances of Panchayats reporting data for only two of the three years or not reporting data for some account heads for all three years. The data were cleaned for such reporting issues, and a balanced panel has been used for the analysis with the same number of village Panchayats across the three years. The data in the balanced panel cover 80.8 per cent and 69.1 per cent of total Panchayats for revenue receipts and expenditure, respectively (Table II.2).

Table II.2: State-wise Number of Village Panchayats in the Balanced Panel
State/UT Total No. of Village Panchayats Revenue Receipts Revenue Expenditure
No. of Panchayats Coverage (%) No. of Panchayats Coverage (%)
Andhra Pradesh 13325 3575 26.8 3384 25.4
Assam 2662 1515 56.9 892 33.5
Bihar 8181 2613 31.9 39 0.5
Chhattisgarh 11654 10886 93.4 10518 90.3
Goa 191 102 53.4 65 34.0
Gujarat 14620 13474 92.2 1246 8.5
Haryana 6223 4252 68.3 2029 32.6
Himachal Pradesh 3615 3060 84.6 2921 80.8
Jammu And Kashmir 4291 253 5.9 4142 96.5
Jharkhand 4345 4243 97.7 4097 94.3
Karnataka 5953 4173 70.1 4165 70.0
Kerala 941 373 39.6 705 74.9
Ladakh 193 - - 24 12.4
Madhya Pradesh 23012 21922 95.3 17868 77.6
Maharashtra 27901 24679 88.5 24815 88.9
Manipur 3812 152 4.0 135 3.5
Mizoram 842 361 42.9 - -
Odisha 6794 5728 84.3 5918 87.1
Punjab 13241 11513 86.9 5701 43.1
Rajasthan 11253 8989 79.9 5508 48.9
Sikkim 199 165 82.9 154 77.4
Tamil Nadu 12525 9159 73.1 10371 82.8
Telangana 12769 12280 96.2 11848 92.8
Tripura 1176 1172 99.7 1160 98.6
Uttar Pradesh 57709 55274 95.8 52953 91.8
Uttarakhand 7795 7003 89.8 6751 86.6
West Bengal 3339 1932 57.9 1163 34.8
Total 258561 208848 80.8 178572 69.1
Note: -: Data are not available.
Source: MoPR.

2.5 Depending upon the size and population of the State, the number of Panchayats varies considerably across the States in the dataset. For revenue receipts, the number of Panchayats varies from 102 in Goa to 55,274 in Uttar Pradesh. Furthermore, for a given State, there can be wide variations in the reporting between revenue receipts and revenue expenditure. To address such issues, the analysis and State-wise data presented in this Report pertain to averages per Panchayat level.

2.1 Receipts

2.6 The revenue receipts are dominated by grants-in-aid, with a share of more than 95 per cent of the total receipts (Table II.3). The Panchayats receive grants from both Central and State governments. These grants may be distributed under specific schemes or based on the Central Finance Commission’s (CFC) and State Finance Commissions’ (SFC) recommendations.

Table II.3: Revenue Receipts
(₹ crore)
  2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
Revenue Receipts 41,744 37,971 35,354
A. Own Tax Revenue 703 786 737
B. Own Non-Tax Revenue 1,365 1,415 1,494
C. Grants-in-aid 39,675 35,770 33,123
(i) Grants from Central Government 30,264 27,060 24,699
(ii) Grants from State Government 9,138 8,412 8,148
Average Revenue per Panchayat
 (₹ thousand per Panchayat)
Revenue Receipts 2,117 2,320 2,123
A. Own Tax Revenue 24 26 21
B. Own Non-Tax Revenue 68 72 73
C. Grants-in-aid 2,026 2,221 2,029
(i) Grants from Central Government 1,640 1,846 1,694
(ii) Grants from State Government 377 366 327
Note: Grants-in-aid include grants from Centre, States, and other institutions.
Source: MoPR.

2.7 The average revenue per Panchayat from all sources - taxes, non-taxes and grants - was ₹21.2 lakh in 2020-21, ₹23.2 lakh in 2021-22 and ₹21.23 lakh in 2022-23. The decline in 2022-23 was owing to lesser devolution of grants. Aggregate revenue receipts appear to vary broadly in line with the States’ populations (Chart II.1).

2.8 The ratio of revenue receipts of the Panchayats to States’ own revenues ranges from 0.1 per cent in Andhra Pradesh to 2.5 per cent in Uttar Pradesh, indicating that their revenues are moderate relative to those of the States (Chart II.2). The average revenue per Panchayat varied from ₹2.7 lakh in Andhra Pradesh to ₹64 lakh in West Bengal (Chart II.3).

2.9 The own revenues of the Panchayats - generated by imposing local taxes, fees, and charges on various activities, including land revenue, professional and trade taxes, and miscellaneous fees – were only 1.1 per cent of their total revenue during the study period (Table II.4). Non-tax revenue - primarily from Panchayati Raj programmes and interest earnings – is also modest, with a share of only 3.3 per cent of their total revenue receipts. Panchayats in Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Telangana reported higher non-tax revenue than other States (Chart II.4). Maharashtra’s high own non-tax revenue in 2022-23 is attributed to significant receipts under the Panchayati Raj programmes.

Chart II.1: Aggregate Revenue Receipts of Village Panchayats

Chart II.2: Ratio of Revenue Receipts of Panchayats to States’ Own Revenue

Chart II.3: Average Revenue of Village Panchayat

Table II.4: Panchayat Finances - Key Ratios for 2020-23
(Per cent)
  2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
Own-Tax Revenue to Total Revenue Receipts 1.1 1.1 1.0
States’ Grants to Total Revenue Receipts 17.8 15.8 15.4
Central Government’s Grants to Total Revenue Receipts 77.5 79.6 79.8
Combined (Centre plus States) Grants to Total Revenue Receipts 95.7 95.7 95.5
Panchayat’s Revenue Receipts to GDP at Current Prices 0.21 0.16 0.13
Ratio of Panchayat’s Expenditure to GDP at Current Prices 0.13 0.10 0.08
1. Ratios are calculated using per Panchayat average estimates.
2. Combined grants include grants from Central, State Governments and other institutions.
Source: MoPR.

2.2 Expenditure

2.10 The average expenditure per Panchayat decreased from ₹17.3 lakh in 2020-21 to ₹12.5 lakh in 2022-23 (Table II.5) due to higher-than-normal spending in the pandemic year 2020-21. Goa, Karnataka, Odisha, Sikkim, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu recorded the highest average expenditure at the Panchayat level (Chart II.5 and Chart II.6).

Table II.5: Revenue Expenditure
(₹ crore)
  2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
Revenue Expenditure 24,600 21,248 20,712
Panchayati Raj Programmes 18,377 13,737 13,137
  (75) (65) (63)
Water Supply and Sanitation 3,277 4,717 5,616
  (13) (22) (27)
Average Revenue Expenditure
(₹ thousand per Panchayat)
Revenue Expenditure 1,732 1,388 1,250
Panchayati Raj Programmes 1,400 908 736
  (81) (65) (59)
Water Supply and Sanitation 168 324 396
  (10) (23) (32)
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate share in total revenue expenditure.
Source: MoPR.

Chart II.4: Own Non-Tax Revenue

Chart II.5: Revenue Expenditure of Panchayats


2.11 The ratio of revenue expenditure of Panchayats to nominal GSDP is less than 0.6 per cent for all the States, ranging from 0.001 per cent in Bihar to 0.56 per cent in Odisha (Chart II.7).

2.12 Regarding the composition of expenditure, there has been a consistent rise in spending on water and sanitation during the sample period, mirroring an increased emphasis on cleanliness and access to clean water supply; however, there exist inter-State differences (Chart II.8).

Chart II.6: Average Revenue Expenditure per Panchayat

Chart II.7: Ratio of Revenue Expenditure to GSDP in 2020-21

Chart II.8: Revenue Expenditure on Water Supply and Sanitation in 2022-23

Chart II.9: Share of Capital Expenditure in Total Expenditure

2.13 Investment in capital projects constituted 29.6 per cent of the total expenditure of Panchayats in 2022-23, on average, across States (Chart II.9).

2.14 A significant share of the capital expenditure by PRIs is allocated to Panchayati Raj Programmes, transportation, water supply and sanitation, rural electrification, and rural housing (Chart II.10).

Chart II.10: Composition of Capital Expenditure in 2022-23

Chart II.11: Ratio of Revenue Expenditure to Capital Expenditure

2.15 The revenue to capital expenditure ratio averaged 3.2 in 2022-23, and the ratio varied between 0.1 in Bihar and 11.5 in Tripura (Chart II.11).

3. Grants

2.16 Grants from higher tiers of the government are an overwhelming funding source for the PRIs, empowering them to fulfil their mandated responsibilities and promote development at the grassroots level. Grants are disbursed by the Central Government, based on the recommendations of the Central Finance Commissions (Box II.1) and by the State Governments, based on the recommendations of the State Finance Commissions (Box II.2). They are also allocated through centrally sponsored schemes. The grants come in various forms:

Box II.1: Central Finance Commission Grants to RLBs

After the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts of 1992, six Central Finance Commissions (CFC-X to CFC-XV) have given their recommendations for devolution of grants to rural local bodies (RLBs) so far and these have continuously increased over time (Table II.1.1). Although the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Tenth CFC (1995-2000) did not specifically require it to make recommendations for the local bodies, it recommended ad hoc grants of ₹100 per capita for the rural population, totalling ₹4,381 crore for the five-year period under its purview. Areas exempted from the purview of Part IX and IX A of the Indian Constitution1 were also provided these grants. The ToR of all the subsequent CFCs required recommendations for grants to the local bodies.

The Eleventh CFC (2000-05) recommended total grants of ₹8,000 crore to the RLBs for the five-year period under its purview, to be distributed among the States based on population, area, distance from the highest per capita income, revenue effort and index of decentralisation. These grants also encompassed a portion designated for regions not covered by the 73rd Amendment Act. This portion was to be allocated to the respective States once they had successfully enacted the necessary legislation for extending the provisions of the Act to the excluded areas. The initial allocation of funds from the grants was to be dedicated to activities such as maintaining accounts and databases. Thereafter, the grants were to be utilised for the provision of core civic services.

The Twelfth CFC (2005-10) recommended total grants of ₹20,000 crore to the RLBs for its award period. While continuing with the horizontal devolution criteria of the Eleventh CFC, it stressed on priority to expenditures on operation and maintenance costs of water supply and sanitation in its recommendations. It did not indicate separate grants for normal and excluded areas, leaving the allocation to the States.

The grants recommended by the Thirteenth CFC (2010-15) were expressed as a proportion of the divisible pool. The grants had two components: (i) general basic grant of ₹41,226 crore available to all the RLBs for the five-year period; and (ii) general performance-based grants totalling ₹21,827 crore accessible only upon fulfilling the conditions related to establishing local body audit systems, budget databases and independent ombudsman systems at the local level. The Commission also recommended ₹1,357 crore as grants for areas excluded from the operation of 73rd Amendment Act.

The Fourteenth CFC (2015-20) recommended total rural local grants of ₹2.0 lakh crore for the five-year period under its purview. 10 per cent of these grants were performance grants linked to (i) providing audited accounts and (ii) demonstration of an enhancement in self-generated revenues. No grants were recommended for the excluded areas. Further, the Commission gave recommendations for strengthening SFCs and augmenting resources at the State and local levels.

The Fifteenth CFC (2021-26) recommended a fixed amount of ₹2.4 lakh crore for the RLBs for the five-year period under its purview. These grants were also meant for the areas outside the purview of the 73rd Amendment Act. 60 per cent of these grants were tied exclusively for water and sanitation-related areas. The Commission specified the online availability of audited accounts as a prerequisite to avail any grant. To ensure the timely transfer of funds to the local bodies, the Commission mandated the release of local body grants by the State governments within ten working days of the receipt of such grants from the Central Government, with a specific interest rate to be paid for any delay beyond the said period.

The actual funds disbursed to the PRIs have been about 5-18 per cent lower than the amounts recommended by the CFCs (Table II.1.1). This was primarily due to the local bodies’ failure to meet the conditions attached to the performance grants.

Table II.1.1: Central Finance Commission Grants to RLBs
Central Finance Commission Quantum of Grants
(₹ crore)
Type of Disbursement Conditions linked with Grants
(if any)
Gap in Disbursement
(Per cent)
X (1995-2000) 4,381 Absolute Grants should not be used for giving salaries and wages 18.4
XI (2000-05) 8,000 Absolute 1. Maintenance of accounts to be the first charge. 17.5
      2. Provision of civic services  
XII (2005-10) 20,000 Absolute Priority to water supply and sanitation 5.4
XIII (2010-15) 64,408 Proportional of the divisible pool Performance grants linked to maintaining accounts and audit systems 9.3
XIV (2015-20) 2,00,292 Absolute Performance grants linked to budget database and improvement in own revenues 10.4
XV (2021-26) 2,36,805 Absolute 1. Online availability of audited accounts as a precondition to avail grants -
      2. 60 per cent grants tied to be spent on water and sanitation  
Notes: 1. Proportional grants are expressed as per cent of the divisible pool of taxes (over and above the share of the States); while absolute grants are expressed as fixed sum. For CFC-XIII: allocation recommended was based on actual divisible pool realised.
2. Gap in disbursement is calculated using figures on grants released as a percentage of recommended grants, from the XV CFC Report.
Source: Central Finance Commission Reports.


“Central Finance Commission Reports”, Central Finance Commissions.

Ministry of Panchayati Raj (2020), “Utilisation and Impact Evaluation of 14th Finance Commission Grants to Gram Panchayats in Selected Indian States”.

1 Part IX and IXA of the Constitution were inserted by the Constitution (73rd and 74th Amendment) Act, 1992.
Fifth and Sixth Schedule areas were excluded from the 73rd Amendment Act. However, the Act was later extended to the Fifth Schedule areas in 1996.

Box II.2: State Finance Commission Grants to Local Bodies

Article 243-I of the Indian Constitution stipulates the establishment of State Finance Commissions (SFCs) for recommending tax sharing between the State and the Panchayats. The initial SFC was to be constituted within one year of the enactment of the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act in 1992. Subsequently, new SFCs were to be formed every five years. While the setting up of the sixth SFC was scheduled for all the States in 2019-20, its constitution has not been uniform and timely across States (Chart II.2.1). As per the Fifteenth CFC Report, only 4 States, namely Assam, Bihar, Punjab and Rajasthan, had established their 6th SFCs, and another 11 States had constituted their 5th SFC till then. According to MoPR, only 9 States have constituted their 6th SFC by 2022. Keeping in view the importance of SFC grants for the local bodies, the Fifteenth CFC recommended that the compliance to constitutional provisions in respect of SFC will be a necessary condition for disbursement of grants to local bodies for 2024-25 and 2025-26.

The composition of the divisible pool of resources for determining the vertical devolution of funds between the State and the local governments has varied across States and Commissions. Some SFCs have recommended grants as a portion of own tax revenues of the State, while others have devolved a share of own revenues (i.e., own tax and own non-tax revenues) to the local bodies. Additionally, some SFCs have recommended devolution based on the State’s total revenue, including the State’s share in Central transfers. The average annual per capita SFC grants for all the States taken together increased from ₹599 during 2010-14 to ₹1,180 during 2015-19. Bihar, Sikkim, Haryana, Assam, Kerala, Uttarakhand, and Himachal Pradesh accounted for the highest increase in SFC grants (Table II.2.1).

Chart II.2.1: Number of SFCs Constituted by theStates so far

For the 2015-19 period, Odisha, West Bengal and Mizoram had the lowest average annual per capita SFC devolutions while they were above the national average for Kerala and Karnataka (Chart II.2.2). States define the composition of SFC grants differently, and some States include Central transfers in their grants.

While SFC grants have co-moved with CFC grants (Chart II.2.3), the per capita grants recommended by the SFCs, averaged over the 22 States mentioned in Table II.2.1 have been consistently higher than the grants recommended by the CFCs (Chart II.2.4). Although CFC grants increased from 14.3 per cent of the SFC grants (of selected States) in 2010-11 to 44.2 per cent in 2019-20, SFC grants remain a vital source of funds for the local bodies.

Table II.2.1: Average Annual Per Capita SFC Grants
(in ₹)
State 2010-14 2015-19 Per cent change
Odisha 209.4 146.7 -29.9
West Bengal 111.5 152.3 36.5
Uttar Pradesh 315.5 449.5 42.4
Manipur 697.0 1,002.7 43.8
Tamil Nadu 902.5 1,426.2 58.0
Punjab 287.6 456.5 58.7
Rajasthan 291.6 471.9 61.7
Chhattisgarh 307.3 504.0 63.9
Karnataka 3,212.2 6,090.0 89.5
Himachal Pradesh 182.3 367.1 101.3
Uttarakhand 644.7 1,361.2 111.1
Kerala 1,405.4 2,999.7 113.4
Assam 168.2 431.0 156.2
Haryana 250.4 737.8 194.6
Sikkim 47.5 212.4 347.2
Bihar 61.6 356.7 478.5
Andhra Pradesh 421.4 NA -
Gujarat 433.5 NA -
Madhya Pradesh NA 421.5 -
Maharashtra 1,087.9 NA -
Mizoram NA 149.1 -
Tripura 152.6 NA -
All States Average 599.0 1,179.6 96.9
Source: NIPFP, 2018.

Chart II.2.2: Average Annual Per Capita SFC Devolution (2015-16 to 2019-20)

Apart from the assignment of State taxes to local bodies, there has been a wide variety of grants recommended by the SFCs. They include grants for the maintenance of assets (recommended by the SFCs of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, and Tamil Nadu). Some SFCs like in Assam, Chhattisgarh, Haryana and Gujarat have recommended lump sum grants, ad hoc grants, specific needs grants, one-time grants, and special purpose grants. SFCs in Karnataka and Rajasthan recommended untied grants. Performance grants were recommended by the SFCs of Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, and West Bengal in order to incentivise revenue collection by the local bodies.

Chart II.2.3: Correlation between Per Capita CFC and SFC Grants (Average of 22 States)

Chart II.2.4: SFC Grants vis-à-vis Central Finance Commission Grants (Per Capita)


Chakraborty, P., Gupta, M., & Singh, R. K. (2018), Overview of State Finance Commission Reports, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, New Delhi.

15th Central Finance Commission Report, 2020.

• Untied Grants: also known as general-purpose grants, these are provided without specific conditions or restrictions and they can be utilised by PRIs on the basis of local priorities and needs.

• Tied Grants: earmarked for specific purposes or sectors, such as sanitation, education, healthcare, or infrastructure development, these grants ensure that funds are directed towards the targeted areas of development as determined by higher levels of government.

• Performance-based Grants: based on the recommendations of some CFCs to link grants to specific performance criteria, PRIs that demonstrate effective governance, financial management, and successful implementation of development projects may receive additional funds as incentives for their performance.

• Special Category Grants: these grants are designed to address unique challenges or particular needs of PRIs in specific regions or contexts and provide additional financial support to regions facing particular socio-economic or geographical constraints.

2.17 At the Panchayat level, grants are the principal revenue source, with a share of over 95 per cent on average across States (Chart II.12). This is in contrast with the composition of States’ revenue receipts - own tax and non-tax revenue comprise more than 50 per cent of the total revenue receipts for most States (Chart II.13). In a few States such as Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana, Panchayats have managed to generate relatively higher own revenues. The grants help to reduce horizontal disparities among the Panchayats (Box II.3).

Chart II.12: Components of Revenue of Panchayats in 2022-23

Chart II.13: Components of State's Revenue Receipts in 2022-23

Box II.3: Grants-in-Aid and Horizontal Disparities

There are notable differences in the distribution of grants-in-aid to PRIs across States and years (Charts II.3.1a and 1b). The intra-State disparity in the distribution of grants-in-aid is low in Kerala and West Bengal and high in Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, and Jammu and Kashmir.

To assess the relationship between grants and horizontal disparities, the deviations of each Panchayat’s revenue (excluding grants) from the respective State-wise mean revenues (excluding grants) are divided into negative and positive deviations. A fixed effects regression is then estimated on grants-in-aid received by the PRI to the ‘deviation from mean’ variable as defined above. The regression results indicate that the Panchayats with lower own revenues than the mean revenue (i.e., Deviation<0) get more grants, on average. On the other hand, no significant association is found between the deviation from mean revenue and grants-in-aid if the revenues are higher than the mean revenue. These results suggest that grants-in-aid mitigate horizontal disparities among the Panchayats (Table II.3.1).

Table II.3.1: Grants-in-Aid and Panchayat Revenues
  Grants Grants
  Deviation<0 Deviation>0
Deviation from Mean 0.632*** 0.0349
  (3.820) (0.820)
Deviation Squared -0.000*** 0.000
  (-7.08) (0.540)
Constant 1811027.1*** 2792390.5***
  (62.84) (111.13)
N 36798 16605
adj. R-sq 0.628 0.899
Source: RBI staff estimates.

Chart II.3.1

4. Conclusion

2.18 An analysis of the financial situation of Panchayats for the period 2020-21 to 2022-23 reveals that nearly all of their revenues are through grants from higher levels of government, underscoring their heavy reliance on the Central and State governments for financial resources. On the expenditure side, there is a discernible upward shift in investment in water supply and sanitation, with the most allocations to the Panchayati Raj Programme. It would be prudent for the Panchayats to reduce their heavy dependence on grants by deploying the tax and non-tax instruments available to them to raise resources. This would help them to improve the quality of their services in rural areas and strengthen the rural economy.


Data and Methodology

In the streamlined classification system under the Model Accounting System, the initial four-digit categorisation pertains to the primary category denoting functions outlined in the 11th Schedule of the Constitution. The subsequent three-digit classification designates the sub-category indicative of the program or unit of expenditure. All the 29 functions listed in the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution are subsumed under 23 distinct major heads.

Table A.1: Account Structure of Panchayats
Sr. No. Revenue Receipts Major Code Sr. No. Revenue Expenditure Major Code
I. Own Tax Revenue   1 Agriculture including Agriculture Extension 2435
1 Taxes on Profession Trades etc. 0028 2 Animal Husbandry Dairying Poultry and Fuel and Fodder 2403
2 Land Revenue 0029 3 Art Culture and Libraries 2205
3 Stamps and Registration Fees 0030 4 Education 2202
4 Taxes on Property other than Agri. Land 0035 5 Fisheries 2405
5 Taxes on Vehicles 0041 6 Forestry 2406
6 Taxes on Goods and Passengers 0042 7 Health and Family Welfare 2210
7 Service Tax 0044 8 Interest Payments 2049
8 Taxes on Duties and Commodities 0045 9 Maintenance of Community Assets 2059
II. Own Non-Tax Revenue   10 Market and Fairs 2206
1 Interest Receipts 0049 11 Minor Irrigation 2702
2 Maintenance of Community Assets 0059 12 Non-Conventional Sources of Energy 2810
3 Education 0202 13 Panchayati Raj Programmes (i-iv) 2515
4 Market and Fairs 0206   (i) District Panchayat Programmes 2515-101
5 Health and Family Welfare 0210   (ii) Gram Panchayat Programmes 2515-103
6 Water Supply and Sanitation 0215   (iii) Other Expenditure 2515-800
7 Rural Housing 0216   (iv) Panchayat Samiti Programmes 2515-102
8 Animal Husbandry Dairying Poultry and Fuel and Fodder 0403 14 Pension and Other Retirement Benefits 2071
9 Fisheries 0405 15 Poverty Alleviation Programme 2501
10 Forestry 0406 16 Public Distribution System 2408
11 Agriculture including Agriculture Extension 0435 17 Rural Electrification 2801
11 Panchayati Raj Programmes 0515 18 Rural Housing 2216
13 Minor Irrigation 0702 19 Social Security and Welfare 2235
14 Rural Electrification 0801 20 Soil and Water Conservation 2402
15 Village and Small Scale Industries 0851 21 Technical Training and Vocational Education 2203
III Grants-in-aid 1601 22 Transportation 3054
1 Grants from Central Government 1601-101 23 Village and Small Scale Industries 2851
2 Grants from other Institutions 1601-102 24 Water Supply and Sanitation (i-vi) 2215
3 Grants from State Government 1601-103   (i) Maintenance and Repair of Tube-wells 2215-102
        (ii) Maintenance of Water Supply line 2215-101
        (iii) Other Expenditure 2215-800
        (iv) Sewage and Solid Waste Management 2215-104
        (v) Sewerage and Sanitation 2215-103
        (vi) Storm water drainage 2215-105
      25 Welfare of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other weaker sections 2225
      26 Women and Child Welfare 2211
Source: eGramSwaraj, MoPR.

Data Collection

To ensure consistency and uniformity in the dataset, a structured data template was designed, based on the codified accounting structure for Panchayats (Table A.1). This template encompassed both Major and Minor Account Codes, effectively encapsulating the full breadth of financial transactions. The template was shared with the MoPR, and the data received (Table A.2) were subjected to consistency checks to arrive at a balanced panel.

Table A.2: Coverage of Village Panchayats
  Revenue Receipts Revenue Expenditure Capital Receipts Capital Expenditure
2020-21 240810 229936 3298 93244
2021-22 249077 240710 2909 93482
2022-23 240895 238039 2611 83194
Average 243594 236228 2939 89973
Share (%) 95.3 92.4 1.1 35.2
Source: MoPR.