Judgment S. P. Sinha, J. 1. This application raises, rather an interesting question on the interpretation of Sec.16 (3) of the bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962 ). 2. The facts are simple : Respondents 6 and 7 transferred plot nos.87 and 88 of Khata no.679 situated in village mile, Police Station Bindupur in the district of Vaishali to respondent no.5, under a registered sale deed dated 27th May, 1974. The petitioners being admittedly the Raiyat of an adjoining plot of land. Filed application on the 26th august, 1974, claiming right of preemption under Sec.16 (3) of the Act, in respect of the said land. Respondent no.8, who also was an adjoining Raiyat of the transferred land, filed an application on 5th September, 1974 for pre emption under Sec.16 (3) of the Act. Both these applications had been filed after fulfilling all the requirement of law. The deputy Collector-in-charge Land Reforms (hereinafter referred to as the d. C. L. R.) took cognizance of both the applications on the same date and both the applications were taken up for consideration together. The D. C. L. R. granted the claim of the petitioner and rejected the claim of respondent no.8. on the ground that it was the petitioners who had first applied for grant of preemption in their favour. Respondent no.8 then appealed, making the petitioners a party respondent in the said appeal, but the appeal was unsuccessful, the Collector confirming the D. C. L. R. s order. Respondent no.8 then moved the Board of Revenue in revlon and the learned Member. Board of Revenue reversed the order of preemption by observing that the intention behind the provision contained in Sec.16 (3) of the Act was to prevent bifurcation of land and to ensure bigger sizeable block of land and that, therefore, that person should be granted the right of pre-emption who fulfilled such intention behind the said provision of law. He then observed that respondent no.8 was preferrable to the petitioners for the purpose of being granted claim of pre-emption in respect of the transferred land. The petitioners being aggrieved by this order, have moved this Court. 3. 1 have heard learned counsel for the respe;tive parties. He then observed that respondent no.8 was preferrable to the petitioners for the purpose of being granted claim of pre-emption in respect of the transferred land. The petitioners being aggrieved by this order, have moved this Court. 3. 1 have heard learned counsel for the respe;tive parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has asserted that they having come first with the completed application under Sec.16 (3)of the Act, their claim must prevail over all other who came later than them On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.8 has reiterated the view expressed by the learned member, board of Revenue that in order to ensure the intention behind Sec.16 (3) of the Act, the right of pre-emption lay with him, namely respondent no.8. 4. I think in terms of the provisions contained in Sec.16 (3) of the Act, in the between two rival claimants for grant of right of pre-emption when, one is granted such a right the other is left with no remedy under the Act reads as under : " (3) (i) When any transfer of land is made after the commencement of this Act to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall bs entitled, within three months of the date of registration of the document of transfer, to make an application before the Collector in the prescribed manner for the transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions contained to the said deed : provided that no such application shall be entertained by the Collector unless the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten per cent thereof is deposited in the prescribed manner within the said period. (ii) On such deposit being made the co-sharer or the raiyat shall be entitled to be put in possession of the land irrespective of the fact that the application under clause (i) is pending for decision. Provided that where the application is rejected the co sharer or the raiyat, as the case may be, shall be evicted from the land and possession thereof shall be restored to the transferee and the transferee shall be entitled to be paid a sum equal to ten per gent of the purchase money out of the deposit made under clause (i ). (hi) If the application is allowed, the Collector shall by another, direct the transferee to convey the land in favour of the applicant by executing and registering a document of transfer within a period to specified in the order and, if he neglects or refuses to comply with the direction, the procedure prescribed in Order XXII, rule 34 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), shall be, so far as may be, followed. " Sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Sec.16 of the Act enjoins upon the collector to put the claimant in possession of the land on the required deposit having been made by the co-sharer or the raiyat, notwithstanding the fact that the application for pre-emption was still pending for decision. Now, therefore, when the petitioners applied on 26th august, 1974 under Sec.16 (3) (i) of the act fulfilling all the required conditions, they as of right, became entitled to be put in possession of the land in question. Respondent no.8 having filed his application later, could not now be put in possession over the same land, it being already occupied by a previous claimant. This position materialised further when the D. C. L. R. on a consideration of the two applications allowed the application of the petitioners. Thereafter any step for gaining a right of preemption over the land in question, would be a step against the pre-emptor and not against the transferee of the land. Sec.16 (3) of the Act does not envisage a race between two pre-emptors for the transferred land. On the contrary it is a provision for a claim by a per-emptor, who is either a co-sharer or a raiyat of an adjoining land, against the transferee of the land. Therefore, where one person has been granted the right of per-emption, the other claimant is shut out from making any further claim over the land, because that would aot be a claim against the transferee of the land, but against the pre-emptor. In my opinion, when there is a race between two per-emptors, after the one has won against the other, the other has to sit down. He cannot carry on the race to higher courts, because that would be a proceeding which is not at all envisaged in terms of sec.16 (3) of the Act. In my opinion, when there is a race between two per-emptors, after the one has won against the other, the other has to sit down. He cannot carry on the race to higher courts, because that would be a proceeding which is not at all envisaged in terms of sec.16 (3) of the Act. 5 In my opinion, therefore, the learned Member, Board of Revenue went wrong in allowing the application of respondent no.8 against the right of per-emption already granted in favour of the petitioner. I may observe that it is neither a case of first come first served, nor a case of carrying on the intention behind Sec.16 (3) of having bigger sizeable blocks of land, which would be material for the purpose of deciding such a matter. What would be material is that if a person has duly applied for grant of pre-emption and his application has been allowed, no further application can be entertained in respect of the very same land. 6. In the result, the order contained in annexure 5 is set aside and the application is allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Application allowed.