Judgment 1. By this writ application, the petitioner prays for quashing of Annexure-13 which is an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, dated 19-10-1981 in Misc. Case No. 21 of 1980, whereby the Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and she was declared to be an encroacher on public land. Though it is not necessary to go into the factual details, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in the last survey, plot No. 202 appertaining to khata no. 136 having an area 1.60 acres situate in mouza Hirapur in the District of Dhanbad was recorded in favour of Masonic Temple/Lodge. According to the petitioner, a portion of the said plot was allotted to Sk. Hussain, an employee of the said Masonic Lodge/Temple. The aforesaid property belonged to Jharia Raj which, in the year, 1935, had executed a deed in favour of Masonic Lodge/Temple. The said Jharia Raj vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1951, but the land in question remained with the Masonic Lodge/Temple, and a portion of it continued to be in possession of Sk. Hussain who continued to pay rent, taxes etc. to the Dhanbad Municipality. Sk. Hussain also raised structures over a portion of Plot No. 202. According to the petitioner, the municipal records would show that Sk. Hussain was in occupation of the structures which had a municipal holding number and, was paying rent, taxes etc. to the Municipality. The petitioner claims that she purchased that land in question together with the structures thereon by a registered deed of sale dated 10-1-1963 and amalgamated the said plot/structure with her adjacent land. The further case of the petitioner is that she applied for mutation in respect of plot no. 202 measuring 41/2 kathas which she had purchased from Sk. Hussain. This application was made in October, 1974 and in spite of the objections raised by Masonic Temple/Lodge, the mutation was recommended in favour of the petitioner by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. Ultimately, by order dated 27-8-1976, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhandbad, directed that the rent may be accepted from the petitioner and accordingly, a Jamabandi was opened in her name. 3. Ultimately, by order dated 27-8-1976, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhandbad, directed that the rent may be accepted from the petitioner and accordingly, a Jamabandi was opened in her name. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Circle Officer, Dhanbad, by his communication dated 11th February, 1980, informed the petitioner that Jamabandi in her name had been cancelled as per Additional Collectors letter dated 5-11-1979. The petitioner on coming to know of this, made an application to the Deputy Commissioner for review of his order, but the same was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 16-10-1980. The Deputy Commissioner further directed that the encroachment be removed immediately. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 679 of 1980(R). That writ application was allowed by this Court by order dated 23rd March, 1981, on the ground that the cancellation of Jamabandi was done without notice to the petitioner and without giving her an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The order was, therefore, quashed, but it was left open to the Deputy Commissioner to pass a fresh order after giving notice to the petitioner. 4. After disposal of the writ application a notice was sent by the Deputy Commissioner to the petitioner which is dated 20th June, 1981. A perusal of the notice discloses that the petitioner was informed that after named by the High Court, the matter was fixed for hearing on 14th July, 1981, on which date she should appear. The notice is a simple notice regarding the date of hearing, and does not mention anything else which may indicate the case which the petitioner was required to meet, or the action proposed to be taken against her. 5. It appears that pursuant to the said notice which is Annexure-8 in the instant writ petition, the petitioner filed her objections which is Annexure-9, and later also filed her written submissions. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, passed an order dated 19th October, 1981, whereby he held that the petitioner had encroached upon government land and that she had no semblance of title over the land in question. He, accordingly, upheld the order of cancellation of Jamabandi and directed the Circle Officer to take possession of the entire property of Masonic Temple including the land and the building in question. 6. He, accordingly, upheld the order of cancellation of Jamabandi and directed the Circle Officer to take possession of the entire property of Masonic Temple including the land and the building in question. 6. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that in view of the earlier order of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner was obliged to give proper notice to the petitioner, and such notice should have disclosed the grounds on which the Deputy Commissioner proposed to proceed against the petitioner with sufficient particulars, so that she could effectively represent her case before the authorities. According to her, the notice issued to her was merely a notice regarding the date of hearing. No notice was issued earlier, and no notice was issued after the judgement of the High Court in the writ petition, disclosing either the grounds on which the authorities proposed to proceed or the specific breach of any rule or order. The notice did not disclose even the charge or allegation that the petitioner had to meet, and reasons wherefor the Jamabandi was sought to be cancelled. Under these circumstances, it was submitted that the notice (Annexure-8) was no notice in the eye of law since notice must give enough particulars to enable the party concerned to represent his case effectively. The notice must briefly state reasons why the proceedings have been drawn up, the provision of law under which action is sought to betaken, and the factual allegations that constitute the basis for taking such action. Unless these particulars are mentioned it is not possible for any one to represent his case effectively. 7. Mr. S.B. Gadodia, Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite obvious that the petitioner knew the case which she was required to meet. She not only filed for her written objections (Annexure-9), but also submitted her notes of arguments (Annexure-11) after she appeared in the proceeding. To this, the petitioner replied by saying that this enquiry was in the nature of roving enquiry and it was not known as to what was the exact case that the petitioner had to meet. In fact in her written objections this was precisely the grievance or objection raised by her, and later reiterated at the hearing as is evidenced from the notes of arguments (Annexure-11). In fact in her written objections this was precisely the grievance or objection raised by her, and later reiterated at the hearing as is evidenced from the notes of arguments (Annexure-11). In her objection after mentioning the various events leading to her acquiring title, and the earlier proceedings culminating in the order of High Court dated 23-3-1981. She stated : "That the notice dated 20-6-1981 received by this petitioner hardly clarified as to on what point the petitioner is going to be heard or on what aspect she is supposed to make, her submissions after taking into account that the order dated 28-10-1979 (cancelling the Jamabandi) and Annexures-4, 5 and 6 have already been quashed by the Hon ble High Court. It is, therefore, prayed that since the notice issued on 20-6-81 in the Misc. Case No. 21 of 1980 has no locus standi and does not disclose any allegation whatsoever, which the petitioner is supposed to meet or does not disclose on what points, the petitioner has to make submissions, it should be cancelled for want of proper form and for this the petitioner shall ever pray." The submission is that the case which a notice is required to meet must be mentioned with specificity even if briefly, so that the party concerned may be able to represent his case effectively. The mere fact that a party has some broad idea or impression about what may be the possible charge levelled against him, is not sufficient. 8 In the instant case, there are two aspects of the matter, Firstly, the Jamabandi opened in the name of the petitioner is sought to be cancelled. Consequently, on the basis of such cancellation, the petitioner is sought to be evicted on the ground that she is an encroacher on public land. It may be that the matter may ultimately be resolved only in a duly constituted suit, but the grievance of the petitioner that she should get a fair opportunity of meeting the case against her, cannot be said to be baseless. It has been contended that so far there is no notice on record mentioning the specific case against the petitioner which she is required to meet. In the absence of such a notice, the mere fact that the petitioner had filed notes of arguments (Annexure-11) or objections (Annexure-9) do not cure the illegality. It has been contended that so far there is no notice on record mentioning the specific case against the petitioner which she is required to meet. In the absence of such a notice, the mere fact that the petitioner had filed notes of arguments (Annexure-11) or objections (Annexure-9) do not cure the illegality. In fact her main objection in Annexure-9 was that there was no proper notice detailing the allegations against the petitioner on the basis of which any adverse action against her was proposed, and she did not know the case that she was required to meet. In her notes of arguments as well, she reiterated this objection. 9. Insistence upon notice being given to a party adversely affected by any action, is the requirement of the principles of natural justice. It is true that acting in accordance with the principles of natural justice does not mean forcing the administrative procedure into a strait-jacket. However, it does involve the concept or a duty to act fairly. It is well accepted that looking for definitions ox standards of natural justice is an exercise in futility. The only essential point to be kept in mind in all cases is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case, and that the concerned authorities should act fairly, impartially and reasonably. The concept of fair play requires real flexibility, since the requirements of the case, the nature of the enquiry the rules under which the authority is acting and the subject matter that is being dealt with. Natural justice generally requires the persons, liable to be directly affected by the proposed administrative acts, decisions or proceedings to be given adequate notice of what is proposed, so that they may be in a position to make representation on their behalf, to appear at the hearing of the enquiry, and effectively to prepare their own case and to answer the case they have to meet. The requirement of notice depends upon what kinds of interests are sought to be protected. The reason for imposing an obligation to give prior notice is to afford those affected persons an opportunity to make representations and notices must be served in sufficient time to enable those representations to be made effectively. The requirement of notice depends upon what kinds of interests are sought to be protected. The reason for imposing an obligation to give prior notice is to afford those affected persons an opportunity to make representations and notices must be served in sufficient time to enable those representations to be made effectively. While there are exceptions to the rule that non issue or inadequacy of notice will normally invalidate the subsequent proceedings, unless the applicant has been substantially prejudiced thereby, it is also accepted that non-service or inadequacy of a notice depriving the applicant of a proper opportunity to put his case will normally be construed as inflicting substantial prejudice on him. The rules of natural justice are not rigid norms of unchanging Content, and their ambit may vary according to the context. But a decision to take away a persons property would normally be accepted to be subject to procedural safeguards. In such a case there is duty to give an opportunity to the affected persons of being heard and of being apprised of all informations on which the decision may be founded. 10. Given its flexibility, the application of the principles of natural justice in differing circumstances do sometimes raise difficult problems in the matter of their applicability or to the extent of their applicability. The rules of natural justice is neither a formula nor a panacea which can be applied to all situations at all times. Each time an authority is Confronted with a situation, it must apply its mind and follow that procedure which is not an affront to justice, and would amount to acting fairly in the circumstances of the case, keeping in view the jurisdiction exercised by it and the nature and character of rights affected. 11. Coming to the facts of the instant case; the Deputy Commissioner, proposed to cancel the jamabandi opened in favour of the petitioner and the cancellation entailed a further drastic consequence, since it followed that the petitioner had no right or title to the lands in question which she claimed to have purchased years ago. The question is, under these circumstances, what procedure was he required to follow consistent with the principles of natural justice which secured fairness and impartiality to the proceeding. The question is, under these circumstances, what procedure was he required to follow consistent with the principles of natural justice which secured fairness and impartiality to the proceeding. I have no doubt that in cases where an individuals right to property is adversely affected, and the authority is required to give prior notice of the proposed action, the notice must satisfy at least three requirements. Firstly it must state the act complained of which means any act or omission which constitutes the breach of any rule or law attracting adverse action; secondly, it must state the action proposed to be taken; and lastly it must state the source of the power under which action is sought to be taken. Of course, any notice calling upon the party to show cause must prescribe the time and place of hearing and the period within which show cause may be filed. This is not to say that the notice must necessarily be a lengthy document. The notice may be precise and brief but must convey to the notice all information which is necessary for him in order to make an effective representation and not to be taken by surprise in the proceeding. The instant case is not one of inadequacy of notice, but a case where no notice at all was given to the petitioner, except that she was informed of the date of hearing without being told as to what was the case which she was called upon to meet. Apprehending drastic action, she made a representation stating all that she could state in her defence without knowing the precise case she was required to meet. When this Court in its earlier judgement directed the Respondents to proceed only after giving due notice, it meant that a proper notice ought to be given to the petitioner so that she could effectively make a representation and meet the case against her. It is futile to contend that since the petitioner had filed her written objections, there was no need of giving her notice. This submission completely overlooks the fact that in her written objections as well after stating the manner in which she acquired title the main objection of the petitioner was that she had no notice of the case against her which she was required to meet. This submission completely overlooks the fact that in her written objections as well after stating the manner in which she acquired title the main objection of the petitioner was that she had no notice of the case against her which she was required to meet. There is no doubt in my mind that in the circumstances the principles of natural justice were breached for non-compliance with the requirement of a proper notice. 12. I, therefore, quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-13) dated 19-10-1981 and direct that the Depute Commissioner shall proceed in accordance with law after issuing an appropriate notice to the petitioner. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed, but the parties shall bear their own costs.