GaonData

Biggest population changes in Shi Yomi district

Computed from 31 villages where both counts are usable. Nobody publishes this ranking; it is not in either source.

OverviewBiggest changesSchool staffing

Fastest growing villages in Shi Yomi district

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

#Village Block 20112020Change
1 Quing Mechuka-Tato 145 326 +124.8%
2 Singbir Mechuka-Tato 160 322 +101.3%
3 Barangang Mechuka-Tato 117 226 +93.2%
4 Pidi H.Q. Manigoan 116 220 +89.7%
5 Bomjipanga Mechuka-Tato 120 220 +83.3%
6 Lungte Manigoan 226 409 +81.0%
7 Thargelling Mechuka-Tato 110 195 +77.3%
8 Dechengtung Mechuka-Tato 160 280 +75.0%
9 Besang (Karo IV) Manigoan 108 189 +75.0%
10 Irgo Mechuka-Tato 190 311 +63.7%
11 Kammo Mechuka-Tato 223 340 +52.5%
12 Yorni Mechuka-Tato 143 217 +51.8%
13 Lhalung Mechuka-Tato 310 469 +51.3%
14 Purying Mechuka-Tato 102 150 +47.1%
15 Yapik Mechuka-Tato 246 357 +45.1%
16 Sejigong Manigoan 138 200 +44.9%
17 Ruku Manigoan 145 208 +43.5%
18 Simugong Manigoan 107 150 +40.2%
19 Hemi Manigoan 144 201 +39.6%
20 Hone Mechuka-Tato 140 180 +28.6%

Villages that shrank most in Shi Yomi district

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

#Village Block 20112020Change
1 Dechengtung West Mechuka-Tato 234 152 -35.0%
2 Sheet Manigoan 118 96 -18.6%
3 Rapum Mechuka-Tato 100 101 +1.0%
4 Hirong Manigoan 118 123 +4.2%
5 Didu Manigoan 132 141 +6.8%
6 Nema Sibo Manigoan 125 142 +13.6%
7 Monigong H.Q. Manigoan 588 696 +18.4%
8 P Krung Manigoan 138 168 +21.7%
9 Pharge Mechuka-Tato 259 321 +23.9%
10 Tato Village Mechuka-Tato 286 359 +25.5%
11 Karle Manigoan 356 450 +26.4%
12 Hone Mechuka-Tato 140 180 +28.6%
13 Hemi Manigoan 144 201 +39.6%
14 Simugong Manigoan 107 150 +40.2%
15 Ruku Manigoan 145 208 +43.5%
16 Sejigong Manigoan 138 200 +44.9%
17 Yapik Mechuka-Tato 246 357 +45.1%
18 Purying Mechuka-Tato 102 150 +47.1%
19 Lhalung Mechuka-Tato 310 469 +51.3%
20 Yorni Mechuka-Tato 143 217 +51.8%
What this ranking leaves out, and why. 51 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 51 excluded in total. How the limits are set.