JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioners have inter alia prayed for following reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:- “That this is an application for grant of an appropriate writ for a direction to the respondents to remove/fill up the drain (nala) constructed over, RSP No.4247 under Khata No.754 situated in village Pipradhi, Dist- Ditmarhi and to restore the land in its original form.” 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that without consent the Raiayati land of the petitioners, appertaining to RSP No. 4247, Khata No.754, situated in village Pipradhi, Sitamarhi has been illegally acquired for construction of public drain (nala) by the Gram Panchayat, Pipradhi. The petitioner no. 1 has filed his objection dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure- 1) before the In-charge Prakhand Panchayati Raj Officer, Bajpatti and who vide letter no. 1311 of 2020 submitted his inquiry report before the Block Development Officer Bajapatti, stating therein that the land in question is private land of the petitioners and the construction was made over the same without the consent of the land owners and requested for maintenance of status quo but till date no consideration has been made in this regard. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that no public drainage subsists over the aforesaid land in question and the report to said effect has been given by the Anchal Amin vide letter dated 24.02.2025 and by Circle Officer vide letter no.220 dated 25.02.2025. 5. Heard the parties. 6. The Gram Panchayat has its due jurisdiction under Article 243-G of the Constitution of India. Article 243 G is in respect of local self-goverance and not in respect of the subject “Land”. Land is the subject of the State Entry 18, List II of Seventh Schedule is reproduced hereinafter: “18. Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization.” 7. Land is the subject of the State Entry 18, List II of Seventh Schedule is reproduced hereinafter: “18. Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization.” 7. The inherent jurisdiction of the Panchayat is contingent upon the extent of power, specifically endowed by the State Legislature under Entry 5 of List II for the purpose of local self government or village administration, making the formal devolution of the Eleventh schedule subjects a prerequisite for any exercise of administrative or statutory functions. Entry 5 of List II is reproduced hereinafter: “5. Local government, that is to say, the constitution and powers of municipal corporations, improvement trusts, districts boards, mining settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or village administration. 8. Schedule 11 of the Constitution of India is reproduced hereinafter: Eleventh Schedule (Article 243G) 29 Matters Listed in the Eleventh Schedule (As in the Constitution): 1. Agriculture, including agricultural extension. 2. Land improvement, implementation of land reforms, land consolidation and soil conservation. 3. Minor irrigation, water management and watershed development. 4. Animal husbandry, dairying and poultry. 5. Fisheries. 6. Social forestry and farm forestry. 7. Minor forest produce. 8. Small scale industries, including food processing industries. 9. Khadi, village and cottage industries. 10.Rural housing. 11.Drinking water. 12.Fuel and fodder. 13.Roads, culverts, bridges, ferries, waterways and other means of communication. 14.Rural electrification, including distribution of electricity. 15.Non-conventional energy sources. 16.Poverty alleviation programme. 17.Education, including primary and secondary schools. 18.Technical training and vocational education. 19.Adult and non-formal education. 20.Libraries. 21.Cultural activities. 22.Markets and fairs. 23.Health and sanitation, including hospitals, primary health centres and dispensaries. 24.Family welfare. 25.Women and child development. 26.Social welfare, including welfare of the handicapped and mentally retarded. 27.Welfare of the weaker sections, and in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. 28.Public distribution system. 29.Maintenance of community assets. 9. In light of the above constitutional provision in respect of the jurisdiction of the state, local Body can only implement the scheme entrusted to them by the State or the Union and it has been settled by the Apex Court in case of State of U.P. vs. Zila Parishad, Gaziabad reported in (2013) 11 SCC 783, wherein the main observation is contained in paragraphs no. 23 and 24, which inter alia is reproduced as under: “ 23 . ...the provision of Article 243-G is merely an enabling provision, and it is not a source of legislation. This view seems to be in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh v. Daya Ram Saroj [ (2007) 2 SCC 138 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 773] wherein an observation has been made that Article 243-G is an enabling provision as it enables the Panchayats to function as institutions of self- government. Further, this Court noted that such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them, including those in relations to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. The enabling provisions are further subject to the conditions as may be specified. Therefore, it is for the State Legislature to consider conditions and to make laws accordingly. It is also open to the State to eliminate or modify the same. 24. Therefore, it is apparent that Article 243-G read with the Eleventh Schedule is not a source of legislative power, and it is only an enabling provision that empowers a State to endow functions and devolve powers and responsibilities to local bodies by enacting relevant laws. The local bodies can only implement the schemes entrusted to them by the State.” 10. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, I find that the petitioners have brought on record that in village Pipradhi, the land as described above over which allegedly Public Drainage (nala) has been constructed. The petitioners filed their objection on 13.08.2020 before the In- charge Prakhand Panchayati Raj Officer, Bajpatti. The said officer, vide Letter No. 1311 of 2020, submitted his inquiry report to the Block Development Officer, Bajpatti, stating that the land in question is the private property of the petitioners and that the construction was carried out on the said land without the consent of the landowners. He further requested that status quo be maintained, however, no action or consideration has been taken in accordance with the inquiry report. 11. He further requested that status quo be maintained, however, no action or consideration has been taken in accordance with the inquiry report. 11. This Court finds that the Anchal Amin and the Circle Officer, concerned have not given any scientific report in respect of the Nala which has been constructed particularly in respect of the land which the petitioners have claimed. I don’t find the report as submitted by the Circle Officer is convincing. 12. In above background of the constitutional provision and facts that the State has admitted in paragraph no.17 of the counter affidavit that till date the Nala has not been constructed unauthorizedly over the land belonging to the petitioners, question of payment of compensation, in view of discussion made hereinabove does not arise. However, in case, the petitioners find that the information contained in para 17 of the counter affidavit is incorrect in that case, they may avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 13. Before parting with this order, I find that the petitioners have not challenged Letter no.3578 dated 17.06.2013. However, in case, the petitioners find that the information contained in para 17 of the counter affidavit is incorrect in that case, they may avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 13. Before parting with this order, I find that the petitioners have not challenged Letter no.3578 dated 17.06.2013. The operative part of the aforesaid letter is reproduced hereinafter: “3- mijksDr ifjizs{; esa vujq ks/k gS fd ipa k;rh jkt foHkkx }kjk fofHkUu inksa ls miyC/k djkbZ xbZ jkf”k ls ;kstukvksa dk dk;ZjEHk@dk;kZUo;u fuEufyf[kr funsZ”kksa dk v{kj”k% vuqikyu lfquf”pr dj gh fd;k tk,& ¼i½- bu ;kstukvksa dk fuekZ.k ;Fkk laHko ljdkjh Hkfwe ij gh l{ke izkf/kdkj ls vuqefr izkIr dj fd;k tk,A ¼ii½ fdlh Hkh izdkj ds Hkou fuekZ.k dh ;kstuk ds fy, ljdkjh tehu miyC/k ugha gksus ij iapk;rksa }kjk futh tehu ij Hkou fuekZ.k dh Lohd`fr rHkh nh tk, tc lacaf/kr jS;r }kjk mDr tehu dk jkT;iky ds uke ls fucaf/kr dj fn;k tk,A ¼iii½ pwafd lM+d@xyh ,oa ukyh ds fuekZ.k dh ;kstukvksa esa vf/kdka”kr% vuds jS;rksa dh Hkwfe lfEefyr gksrh g]S izfr jS;r lfEefyr Hkwfe dk jdok dkQh NksVk gksrk gS ,oa dqN Hk&w /kkjh vius ukSdjh@O;olk; ds dze esa xkao ls ckgj jgrs g]Sa blfy, lHkh jS;rksa ls muds tehu dks jkT;iky ds uke ls fucaf/kr djkuk dkQh tfVy gksxk ,oa ;kstukvksa ds dk;Z vkjEHk esa foyac gksxk ftlls ;kstuk dh mi;ksfxrk rks dqizHkkfor gksxh gh] lkFk gh izkDdfyr jkf”k esa o`f) gksxhA vr,o ,sls ekeyksa esa lHkh jS;rksa ls lwfp dk fuca/ku jkT;iky ds uke ls djkuk ;k mDr tehu dk vf/kxzg.k djkuk vR;f/kd dfBu izrhr gksrk gSA bl ifjizs{; esa de ls de fuEufyf[kr dkjZokbZ dj gh ;kstuk izkjEHk djuk O;kogkfjd gksxk%& 14. From perusal of the letter dated 17.06.2013, it appears that the State has denied its obligation to make any payment of compensation, particularly in respect of any village road, which is constructed over the land of the private persons. However, it is kept open to consider the validity of Letter No. 3578 dated 17.06.2013, which is an executive instruction, in an appropriate case, or occasion so arises. 15. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.