Biggest population changes in Salem district
Computed from 293 villages where both counts are usable. Nobody publishes this ranking; it is not in either source.
OverviewBiggest changesSchool staffing
Fastest growing villages in Salem district
Ranked by the change between the Census 2011 count and the 2020 Mission Antyodaya survey.
| # | Village | 2011 | 2020 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Olaipadi | 666 | 1,630 | +144.7% |
| 2 | Kumarasamiyur | 525 | 1,276 | +143.1% |
| 3 | Koppampatti | 1,614 | 3,904 | +141.9% |
| 4 | Vettukkadupatti | 303 | 724 | +138.9% |
| 5 | Pillaiyarmathi | 168 | 399 | +137.5% |
| 6 | Soolankurichi | 3,248 | 7,553 | +132.5% |
| 7 | Koppam | 447 | 1,021 | +128.4% |
| 8 | Ettikuttapatti | 2,280 | 5,137 | +125.3% |
| 9 | Neyyamalai | 1,859 | 4,160 | +123.8% |
| 10 | Veppanthattai | 392 | 872 | +122.5% |
| 11 | Eruvadipettampatti | 557 | 1,180 | +111.8% |
| 12 | Kaminaickanpatti. | 637 | 1,269 | +99.2% |
| 13 | Chinnasattappadi | 1,212 | 2,225 | +83.6% |
| 14 | Veppanatham | 1,956 | 3,520 | +80.0% |
| 15 | Periyakavundapuram | 3,536 | 6,356 | +79.8% |
| 16 | Kalpaganur | 5,950 | 10,500 | +76.5% |
| 17 | Sarkar Gollappatti | 3,031 | 4,986 | +64.5% |
| 18 | Pallipatti | 7,248 | 11,852 | +63.5% |
| 19 | Kumarapalayam | 1,576 | 2,529 | +60.5% |
| 20 | Mailapatti | 448 | 716 | +59.8% |
Villages that shrank most in Salem 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 | Kullamanickenpatti | 3,274 | 2,000 | -38.9% |
| 2 | Vedapatti | 1,302 | 800 | -38.6% |
| 3 | Sandiyur Attayampatti | 3,961 | 2,448 | -38.2% |
| 4 | Sarvoy | 5,084 | 3,157 | -37.9% |
| 5 | Kanavoipudur | 8,010 | 5,000 | -37.6% |
| 6 | Naduppatti | 5,652 | 3,563 | -37.0% |
| 7 | Anakkadu | 736 | 468 | -36.4% |
| 8 | Valayasettipalayam | 926 | 589 | -36.4% |
| 9 | Koilputhur | 3,226 | 2,103 | -34.8% |
| 10 | Alamarathupatti | 9,384 | 6,126 | -34.7% |
| 11 | Uthupalayam | 578 | 390 | -32.5% |
| 12 | Avarangampalayam | 512 | 348 | -32.0% |
| 13 | Kaveripuram North | 21,306 | 14,486 | -32.0% |
| 14 | Chinnakavundanur | 6,819 | 4,660 | -31.7% |
| 15 | Palamalai | 2,895 | 2,007 | -30.7% |
| 16 | Kondayampalli | 6,535 | 4,623 | -29.3% |
| 17 | Muthunaickenpatti | 13,192 | 9,374 | -28.9% |
| 18 | T.Maramangalam | 3,333 | 2,376 | -28.7% |
| 19 | Chellapillaikuttai | 7,534 | 5,546 | -26.4% |
| 20 | Umbilikamaramangalam | 3,280 | 2,444 | -25.5% |
What this ranking leaves out, and why.
1 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
1 excluded in total.
How the limits are set.