GaonData

Biggest population changes in Lower Siang district

Computed from 52 villages where both counts are usable. Nobody publishes this ranking; it is not in either source.

OverviewBiggest changesSchool staffing

Fastest growing villages in Lower Siang district

Ranked by the change between the Census 2011 count and the 2020 Mission Antyodaya survey.

#Village Block 20112020Change
1 Jipu Likabali 124 306 +146.8%
2 Durpai Likabali 211 505 +139.3%
3 Tatamori Gensi 161 382 +137.3%
4 Germe Likabali 110 255 +131.8%
5 Rotte Ramle Bango 225 500 +122.2%
6 Pam Ramle Bango 318 652 +105.0%
7 Siji Likabali 149 305 +104.7%
8 Rina Ramle Bango 199 400 +101.0%
9 Uli Likabali 117 229 +95.7%
10 Kora Ramle Bango 277 540 +95.0%
11 Paimori Gensi 140 266 +90.0%
12 Takso Gensi 135 254 +88.2%
13 Hime Likabali 198 363 +83.3%
14 New Deka Ramle Bango 128 220 +71.9%
15 Kangku Likabali 273 469 +71.8%
16 Lika Likabali 223 382 +71.3%
17 Silli Likabali 233 390 +67.4%
18 Kuntor Likabali 233 390 +67.4%
19 Ditten Gensi 123 205 +66.7%
20 Upper Borajan Likabali 207 340 +64.3%

Villages that shrank most in Lower Siang district

A falling count usually means out-migration, but in a small village it can also mean a boundary change.

#Village Block 20112020Change
1 Seren Ramle Bango 795 496 -37.6%
2 Old Deka Ramle Bango 371 262 -29.4%
3 Taramori Gensi 134 95 -29.1%
4 Nari Village Ramle Bango 702 503 -28.4%
5 New Telam Ramle Bango 348 268 -23.0%
6 Potte Ramle Bango 509 411 -19.3%
7 Lipu Likabali Likabali 298 284 -4.7%
8 Pale Likabali 186 185 -0.5%
9 Nari H.Q. Ramle Bango 831 850 +2.3%
10 Mane Ramle Bango 231 240 +3.9%
11 Koyu Ramle Bango 459 480 +4.6%
12 Upper Colony Likabali Likabali 543 568 +4.6%
13 Gensi Gensi 225 253 +12.4%
14 Siji Labour Camp Likabali 106 123 +16.0%
15 Liduk Gensi 103 121 +17.5%
16 Kamcham Likabali 218 257 +17.9%
17 Gensi H.Q. Gensi 467 589 +26.1%
18 Sibe Gensi 244 312 +27.9%
19 Loglu Village Ramle Bango 155 200 +29.0%
20 Rami(Koyu H.Q.) Ramle Bango 116 150 +29.3%
What this ranking leaves out, and why. 31 villages here had fewer than 100 people in 2011 — at that size a percentage says more about the surveyor than the village, so they are excluded. A further 0 sit within half a point of the limits beyond which we treat a figure as implausible (+150% or −40%): they are the villages that only just survived that test, not the fastest moving, and ranking them first would be misleading. That is 31 excluded in total. How the limits are set.