ORDER : The prayer sought in the writ petition reads as under: “… to issue Writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in entertaining the sale deed for registration submitted by the 6th respondent for the land in Sy.No.419/1 to an extent of Ac.3.00 gts. situated at Palwancha Village and Mandal of Bhadradri Kothagudem District, albeit the entries in passbook and title deed of the vendor of the Respondent No.6 are set aside in ROR Appeal No.02/2017 dated 05.09.2017 and the same was confirmed in Special Tribunal No.40/2021 dt.27.01.2021 and also suit filed by the vendor of the 6th respondent against the petitioner was dismissed on 25.8.2018 vide O.S.No.336 of 2007 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge Kothagudem of Bhadradri Kothagudem District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to entertain the sale for the subject land presented by the 6th respondent and to pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of land petitioner, and learned to an extent of Acs.2.28 guntas in Survey No.419/1 of Palvancha Village and Mandal of Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Petitioner alleges that vendor of respondent No.6 filed O.S.No.336 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem District, praying to grant perpetual injunction on lands in Survey Nos.409, 416, 418 and 420. The said suit was dismissed on 25.09.2018 holding that the vendor of respondent No.6 failed to prove her title. Respondent No.6 also obtained pattadar passbook and title deeds on the above extent of land. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed appeal in R.O.R.No.2 of 2017, which was allowed on 04.10.2017 setting aside the entries in 1-B register and consequently the entries made in the pattadar passbook and title deeds. The revision preferred against the said decision was transferred to the Special Tribunal and the said revision was also dismissed on 27.01.2021. 4. According to petitioner, respondent No.6 purchased the subject land vide registered document dated 11.10.2018. The revision preferred against the said decision was transferred to the Special Tribunal and the said revision was also dismissed on 27.01.2021. 4. According to petitioner, respondent No.6 purchased the subject land vide registered document dated 11.10.2018. Based on this registered document, respondent No.6 is trying to create third party interest and is seeking to present the deed of conveyance before the registering authority. Petitioner therefore seeks a declaration on the action of the Sub Registrar, Kothagudem Town and Mandal, respondent No.4, in entertaining the sale deed for registration submitted by respondent No.6 even though respondent No.6 was unsuccessful before the appellate authority and the revisional authority and the suit filed by the vendor of respondent No.6 was dismissed, as illegal and arbitrary. 5. According to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner apprehends that respondent No.6 is now trying to alienate the very same land taking advantage of the sale document executed by the vendor of respondent No.6 and if such document is received by the registering authority, grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. 6. In other words, petitioner is seeking an order of restraint on respondent No.4 from entertaining and registering the deed of conveyance on the apprehension that respondent No.6 is likely to present conveyance deed for registration. Thus, the writ petition is a pre-emptive litigation, to prevent the registering authority from entertaining and processing the deed of conveyance that may be presented by parties to a document and processing the document. 7. The registering authority is vested with power to process the request to register the deed of conveyance or any other document by two parties who execute the document, which affect a property presented before him. He is required to receive and process such document in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the rules made thereunder and to register the document, if the document complies all the requirements. It is open to him to reject the document, by assigning reasons in support of the decision. The two Acts, the Rules made thereunder, the standing orders notified by the State Government and the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, guide the registering authority to deal with a request to register a document. It is open to him to reject the document, by assigning reasons in support of the decision. The two Acts, the Rules made thereunder, the standing orders notified by the State Government and the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, guide the registering authority to deal with a request to register a document. Having regard to the statutory scheme, the writ Court cannot restrain the registering authority from receiving a deed of conveyance that may be presented before him, even before it is presented. 8. The scope of judicial review is available after a decision is made by an authority vested with power to deal with the matters affecting the rights of persons. Once a decision is made, the Court tests the validity of the decision within the parameters of the judicial review as to whether the authority was vested with power to take such decision. Such review may extend to assess validity of decision making process. Judicial review cannot be undertaken even before a decision is made on apprehension of a possible decision which is likely to impact a person’s right on a property. Caveat is right to life and liberty stand on a different pedestal. Therefore, it is premature for the writ Court to go into all aspects as sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even before a document is presented for registration and processed by the registering authority. Further, it cannot be said that petitioner is remediless after a decision is made by the registering authority. 9. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as premature leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies as available in law as and when the cause of action arises. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.