Biggest population changes in Bishnupur district
Computed from 38 villages where both counts are usable. Nobody publishes this ranking; it is not in either source.
OverviewBiggest changesSchool staffing
Fastest growing villages in Bishnupur district
Ranked by the change between the Census 2011 count and the 2020 Mission Antyodaya survey.
| # | Village | 2011 | 2020 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Thamnapokpi | 2,201 | 4,750 | +115.8% |
| 2 | Napat and Tangjeng | 1,964 | 3,535 | +80.0% |
| 3 | Tengkhal Khunou | 964 | 1,519 | +57.6% |
| 4 | Ishok-Terapokpi | 3,055 | 4,719 | +54.5% |
| 5 | Nongmaikhong | 989 | 1,490 | +50.7% |
| 6 | Phubala | 2,800 | 4,112 | +46.9% |
| 7 | Ningthoukhong Kha-Khunou | 844 | 1,198 | +41.9% |
| 8 | Kakyai Langpok | 2,518 | 3,517 | +39.7% |
| 9 | Toubul including Toubul Kabui | 4,542 | 6,335 | +39.5% |
| 10 | Wangoo Keirap (Haotak Tampha khunou) | 431 | 574 | +33.2% |
| 11 | Utlou | 3,355 | 4,392 | +30.9% |
| 12 | Ngaikhong Khullen and Siphai | 5,256 | 6,870 | +30.7% |
| 13 | Lourembam | 1,093 | 1,417 | +29.6% |
| 14 | Thiyam | 1,344 | 1,699 | +26.4% |
| 15 | Sunusiphai | 1,561 | 1,969 | +26.1% |
| 16 | Yumnam Khunou | 1,253 | 1,580 | +26.1% |
| 17 | Nachou | 4,313 | 5,383 | +24.8% |
| 18 | Wapokpi | 701 | 873 | +24.5% |
| 19 | Leimaram | 2,337 | 2,860 | +22.4% |
| 20 | Ngaikhong Khunou | 1,003 | 1,219 | +21.5% |
Villages that shrank most in Bishnupur district
A falling count usually means out-migration, but in a small village it can also mean a boundary change.
| # | Village | 2011 | 2020 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ithai | 1,989 | 1,213 | -39.0% |
| 2 | Torbung Phougakchao Ikhai Part II | 2,781 | 1,783 | -35.9% |
| 3 | Ngangkha Lawai | 3,514 | 2,509 | -28.6% |
| 4 | Potsangbam | 3,721 | 2,938 | -21.0% |
| 5 | Kasom Tampak | 259 | 251 | -3.1% |
| 6 | Leimapokpam khunpham and Keiren Kabui | 8,120 | 7,952 | -2.1% |
| 7 | Chairel Leingangtabi and Khullakpat | 785 | 794 | +1.1% |
| 8 | Sadu Koireng | 655 | 722 | +10.2% |
| 9 | Khoijuman Khunou (Kwasiphai) | 2,738 | 3,027 | +10.6% |
| 10 | Namoikhul | 872 | 976 | +11.9% |
| 11 | Thinungei | 4,027 | 4,580 | +13.7% |
| 12 | Irengbam | 3,384 | 3,880 | +14.7% |
| 13 | Naranseina | 2,648 | 3,044 | +14.9% |
| 14 | Thanga Ithing and Sendra | 1,832 | 2,120 | +15.7% |
| 15 | Keinou including Ayokpa Kabui | 4,935 | 5,788 | +17.3% |
| 16 | Khordak | 832 | 985 | +18.4% |
| 17 | Khoijuman Khullen including Kabui | 2,951 | 3,575 | +21.1% |
| 18 | Pukhrambam Sanjembam including Thounaojam | 3,716 | 4,515 | +21.5% |
| 19 | Ngaikhong Khunou | 1,003 | 1,219 | +21.5% |
| 20 | Leimaram | 2,337 | 2,860 | +22.4% |
What this ranking leaves out, and why.
0 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
0 excluded in total.
How the limits are set.