Judgment :- H.G. RAMESH, J. (Oral): 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent nos. 1 & 2. 2. This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 03.11.2011 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent no.2-the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, K.R. Puram, Bangalore, directing the petitioner to appear before him on 01.12.2011. 3. Heard. The solitary contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid notice does not state as to why the petitioner should appear before the Special Tahsildar except merely stating that the subject relates to change of khatha in respect of the land measuring 2 acres 8 guntas in Survey No.142/1B1. According to the counsel, the notice is vague and hence is violative of the principles of natural justice. He submits that the petitioner has not made any application for change of any khatha. However, he refers to the order dated 26.05.2009 (Annexure-H) passed by the Appellate Authority namely the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division, Bangalore, wherein the khatha in respect of the petitioner’s 20 guntas of land in Block III in the aforesaid survey number was directed to be entered in his name, therefore, according to the counsel, question of again appearing before the Special Tahsildar does not arise. He further submits that the notice does not even refer to the petitioner’s khatha relating to his 20 guntas of land. 4. The question that requires to be determined in this writ petition is, whether the impugned notice is valid in law? When a notice can be said to be valid in law? The term ‘Notice’ originated from the Latin word ‘Notitia’ which means ‘being known’. It is equivalent to information, intelligence or knowledge. Notice is the starting point of any hearing. The right to fair hearing covers every stage through which an administrative adjudication passes, starting from notice to final determination. Notice embodies rule of fairness and must precede an adverse order. It should clearly state the reasons as to why a party is required to appear and/or his reply is required. The party concerned should be apprised of the evidence on which the case against him is based and be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. A notice, to be valid in law, should be clear and precise so as to give the party concerned adequate information of the case he has to meet. The party concerned should be apprised of the evidence on which the case against him is based and be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. A notice, to be valid in law, should be clear and precise so as to give the party concerned adequate information of the case he has to meet. The adequacy of notice is a relative term and must be decided with reference to each case. The test of adequacy of notice will be whether it gives sufficient information so as to enable the person concerned to put up an effective defence. If a notice is vague or it contains unspecified or unintelligible allegations, it would imply a denial of proper opportunity of being heard. Natural justice is not only a requirement of proper legal procedure but also a vital element of good administration. 5. Coming to the impugned notice, it does not state the reason as to why the petitioner should appear before the Special Tahsildar except stating that the subject relates to change of khatha, when factually no application of the petitioner for change of any khatha is pending. Hence, the impugned notice is vague and is accordingly violative of the principles of natural justice. 6. In the result, the impugned notice (Annexure-A) issued by respondent no.2 directing the petitioner to appear before him is quashed. However, respondent No.2-Special Tahsildar is at liberty to initiate any appropriate action against the petitioner by issuing a proper notice in accordance with law. Petition disposed of.