India - Third Economic Census 1990
Reference ID | IDDI-IND-MOSPI-3-EC-1990 |
Year | 0 |
Country | India |
Producer(s) | Central Statistical Organisation(CSO) - Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India (GOI) |
Collection(s) |
Created on
Apr 24, 2018
Last modified
Mar 29, 2019
Page views
547054
- 02 Andhra Pradesh
- 03 Arunachal Pradesh
- 04 Assam
- 05 Bihar
- 06 Goa
- 07 Gujarat
- 08 Haryana
- 09 Himachal Pradesh
- 11 Karnataka
- 12 Kerala
- 13 Madhya Pradesh
- 14 Maharashtra
- 15 Manipur
- 16 Meghalaya
- 17 Mizoram
- 18 Nagaland
- 19 Orissa
- 20 Punjab
- 21 Rajasthan
- 22 Sikkim
- 23 Tamil Nadu
- 24 Tripura
- 25 Utter Pradesh
- 26 West Bengal
- 27 Andaman & Nic
obar - 28 Chandigarh
- 29 Dadar & Nagar
Haveli - 30 Daman & Diu
- 31 Delhi
- 33 Pondicherry
Ward/Mohalla/Hamlet-Code
(W_M_HAMLET_C)
File: 28 Chandigarh
File: 28 Chandigarh
Overview
Type:
Discrete Format: character Width: 3 | Valid cases: 33426 Invalid: 0 |
Value | Category | Cases | |
---|---|---|---|
0 | 5881 | 17.6% | |
1 | 138 | 0.4% | |
10 | 1142 | 3.4% | |
11 | 727 | 2.2% | |
12 | 331 | 1.0% | |
14 | 731 | 2.2% | |
15 | 795 | 2.4% | |
16 | 599 | 1.8% | |
17 | 1502 | 4.5% | |
18 | 508 | 1.5% | |
19 | 364 | 1.1% | |
2 | 88 | 0.3% | |
20 | 437 | 1.3% | |
21 | 406 | 1.2% | |
22 | 1809 | 5.4% | |
23 | 489 | 1.5% | |
24 | 249 | 0.7% | |
25 | 406 | 1.2% | |
26 | 2999 | 9.0% | |
27 | 661 | 2.0% | |
28 | 240 | 0.7% | |
29 | 429 | 1.3% | |
3 | 120 | 0.4% | |
30 | 462 | 1.4% | |
31 | 281 | 0.8% | |
32 | 353 | 1.1% | |
33 | 88 | 0.3% | |
34 | 336 | 1.0% | |
35 | 667 | 2.0% | |
36 | 76 | 0.2% | |
37 | 688 | 2.1% | |
38 | 867 | 2.6% | |
39 | 19 | 0.1% | |
4 | 159 | 0.5% | |
40 | 383 | 1.1% | |
41 | 176 | 0.5% | |
42 | 19 | 0.1% | |
43 | 39 | 0.1% | |
44 | 225 | 0.7% | |
45 | 287 | 0.9% | |
46 | 49 | 0.1% | |
47 | 279 | 0.8% | |
48 | 2027 | 6.1% | |
49 | 1419 | 4.2% | |
5 | 89 | 0.3% | |
50 | 867 | 2.6% | |
6 | 1146 | 3.4% | |
7 | 428 | 1.3% | |
8 | 518 | 1.5% | |
9 | 428 | 1.3% |
Warning: these figures indicate the number of cases found in the data file. They cannot be interpreted as summary statistics of the population of interest.