Order The present appeal arises out of an order of learned single Judge dated 22.4.97 passed in C.W.J.C. No 4983 of 1995 by which learned writ Court affirmed the order of Board of Revenue by which the second transfer "'(as found to be sham and farzi and as the same conclusion has been reached by all the revenue courts, the said finding of fact was unassailable. 2. The present dispute relates to a piece of land measuring 7 dhurs and 15 dhurkis of plot no. 1119 appertaining to Khata no. 23 situated at village Bareja under Kopa Police Station in the district of Saran which was purchased by Respondent No. 6. from Respondent No. 7 of the writ application. The purchase was made under a sale deed executed on 9.2.90 for a consideration of Rs. 3.000/- registration of the said sale deed was completed on 8.10.91. On 19.11.91 Respondent No. 5 of the writ application filed an application for pre-emption claiming to be an adjacent Raiyat of the disputed land. Prior to the filing of the said pre-emption application Respondent No. 6 on 7.11.90 executed a sale deed transferring the disputed land in favour of the appellant. The registration of this second sale deed in favour of the appellant was completed on 2.5.92. Though the second transfer in favour of the appellant was executed prior to filing of the preemption application but the registration was completed after institution of the proceeding. Once the said fact came to light the appellant was also added as an opposite party in the said pre-emption proceeding. The D.C.L.R. Sadar Chapra by order dated 7.9.92 passed in L.C. case No. 25/91 rejecting the claim of pre-emption and found that the pre-emption application originally made against Respondent No. 6 of the writ application with a deposit made as per the consideration amount shown in the sale deed dated 9.2.90 was not maintainable. According to him, the pre-emptor should have filed a pre-emption application only against the second transferee making deposit on the basis of consideration amount shown in the subsequent sale deed dated 7.11.90 in favour of the appellant. 3. An appeal was preferred by the Respondent-5 of the writ application against the said order which was allowed by order dated 14.6.93 by the Additional Collector, Saran in L.C. No. 25/1992. 3. An appeal was preferred by the Respondent-5 of the writ application against the said order which was allowed by order dated 14.6.93 by the Additional Collector, Saran in L.C. No. 25/1992. The said order of appellate court was challenged by the appellant before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed by order dated 24.4.95 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Revenue Case No. 365/93. Said order was assailed before the writ Court which was also dismissed affirming the order of Additional Member, Board of Revenue. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that as the land in question itself has changed its nature and it was no more an agricultural land as such the law of pre-emption was not applicable. By order dated 27.4.98 in view of said submission of learned counsel for the appellant, time was granted to him to file certified copy of the revenue record of the relevant order to show, that at the time when the alleged transaction had taken place, the said land was an agricultural land or not. Though a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the appellant but the relevant order could not be brought on record in support of the appellant's contention that the land not being an agricultural land was not subject of the law of pre-emption. It appears that the said stand of the appellant has for the first time been taken before this Court in appeal. However, as the same was matter of record, the record was directed to be placed in court by filing a supplementary affidavit but the same could not be brought on record. 5. It appears that the said stand of the appellant has for the first time been taken before this Court in appeal. However, as the same was matter of record, the record was directed to be placed in court by filing a supplementary affidavit but the same could not be brought on record. 5. As the appellant could not prove that the said land was not an agricultural land and as law of pre-emption was applicable to the said land and as all the learned revenue courts have found the second transfer to be a sham transfer and as the appellant had been brought on record in the pre-emption proceeding being the second purchaser before the D.C.L.R. and as no prejudice has been caused to the appellant and in view of consistent decision of this Court by several Division Bench which has been relied upon by the learned writ Court, to our mind, rightly learned writ Court did lot interfere with the order of Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna as the second transfer has been found sham and Farzi. 6. For the reasons stated above, as no apparent error could be shown in the order of learned writ Court requiring interference by this Court, the L.P.A. fails and he same is accordingly, dismissed.