JUDGMENT : A. Rajasheker Reddy, J. This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the order dated 04.04.2017 passed by this Court in WP.MP.No.9575/2017 in WP.No.7759/2017, wherein and whereby this Court passed the following order; "It is stated that the appellate authority passed orders in favour of the petitioner in proceedings No.B2/262/2010, dated 10.04.2013 and the same is not implemented by the 3rd respondent. In view of the same, the 3rd respondent is directed to take necessary action in pursuance to the above proceedings dated 10.04.2013, if no stay is operating against the said proceedings." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue produced proceedings dated 08.02.2016, stating that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapally, dated 10.04.2013, has been implemented. 4. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the mother of the petitioner executed the registered gift settlement deed in favour of petitioner, the respondent should have issued proceedings dated 08.02.2016 in favour of petitioner instead of in the name of petitioner's mother and the said aspect is reflected in the proceedings dated 10.04.2013 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 5. In this case it is to be seen that the proceedings dated 08.02.2016 shows that the mother of the petitioner filed application for grant of Virasath/succession in her favour in respect of subject land and basing on the said application virasath/succession is granted in her favour. The operative portion of the order dated 08.02.2016 shows that in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court in WP.MP.No.9575/2017, original entries in revenue records have been restored in the name of original pattedar vide Tahsildar memo No.B/2900/2016, dated 30.05.2017. 6. In view of the above, I do not see any violation of the orders passed by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, if the mother of the petitioner executed registered gift settlement deed in favour of petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to avail remedies for mutation of said property in his favour. No order as to costs. 8. As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.