Biggest population changes in Tirunelveli district
Computed from 190 villages where both counts are usable. Nobody publishes this ranking; it is not in either source.
OverviewBiggest changesSchool staffing
Fastest growing villages in Tirunelveli district
Ranked by the change between the Census 2011 count and the 2020 Mission Antyodaya survey.
| # | Village | 2011 | 2020 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A.Tirumalapuram | 2,543 | 6,280 | +146.9% |
| 2 | Palayamchettikulam | 2,034 | 4,812 | +136.6% |
| 3 | Anaikulam | 3,726 | 8,803 | +136.3% |
| 4 | Chittar Chatram | 870 | 1,983 | +127.9% |
| 5 | Adaiya Karungulam | 3,321 | 7,532 | +126.8% |
| 6 | Mavadi | 1,972 | 4,348 | +120.5% |
| 7 | Moovirunthali | 1,878 | 3,925 | +109.0% |
| 8 | Pettai Part 1 | 2,345 | 4,893 | +108.7% |
| 9 | Senbagaramanallur | 2,470 | 4,980 | +101.6% |
| 10 | Ariyakulam | 2,043 | 4,018 | +96.7% |
| 11 | Therkupatti | 3,066 | 6,010 | +96.0% |
| 12 | Harikesavanallur | 2,653 | 5,183 | +95.4% |
| 13 | Pudur | 1,328 | 2,525 | +90.1% |
| 14 | Unnankulam | 2,300 | 4,366 | +89.8% |
| 15 | Karungadu | 686 | 1,295 | +88.8% |
| 16 | Keelanatham | 11,570 | 21,620 | +86.9% |
| 17 | Vaduganpatti | 380 | 710 | +86.8% |
| 18 | Ettankulam | 2,184 | 4,000 | +83.2% |
| 19 | Vijayapathi | 10,854 | 19,800 | +82.4% |
| 20 | Vadukatchimathil | 1,572 | 2,867 | +82.4% |
Villages that shrank most in Tirunelveli 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 | Udayathoor | 4,550 | 2,832 | -37.8% |
| 2 | Kapaliparai | 1,597 | 1,006 | -37.0% |
| 3 | Velarkulam | 687 | 433 | -37.0% |
| 4 | Pazhavoor Part 1 | 17,780 | 11,384 | -36.0% |
| 5 | Muthumuthamozhi | 4,786 | 3,234 | -32.4% |
| 6 | Nochikulam | 2,670 | 1,824 | -31.7% |
| 7 | Singikulam (NEW) | 1,671 | 1,253 | -25.0% |
| 8 | Iluppaikurichi | 193 | 156 | -19.2% |
| 9 | Veppankulam | 1,537 | 1,250 | -18.7% |
| 10 | Palamadai | 3,688 | 3,070 | -16.8% |
| 11 | Devanallur | 4,631 | 4,047 | -12.6% |
| 12 | Kilathiruvengadanathapuram | 279 | 245 | -12.2% |
| 13 | Sanganhiradu | 1,518 | 1,359 | -10.5% |
| 14 | Ariyakulam | 4,130 | 3,722 | -9.9% |
| 15 | Kattampuli | 600 | 552 | -8.0% |
| 16 | Seethaparpanallur | 1,606 | 1,488 | -7.3% |
| 17 | Venkatarengapuram | 1,105 | 1,033 | -6.5% |
| 18 | Pathinalamperi | 446 | 420 | -5.8% |
| 19 | Tennirkulam | 253 | 240 | -5.1% |
| 20 | Singampatti Zamindar Part 1 | 1,782 | 1,694 | -4.9% |
What this ranking leaves out, and why.
5 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
5 excluded in total.
How the limits are set.