The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing the personal appearance of the Chairman of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) in a dispute concerning compensation for land acquired for widening of National Highway-27.

The matter heard by Justices KV Vishwanathan and Arun Palli arose from a challenge to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s July 22 order where it had permitted the MoRTH Secretary to appear virtually but directed the NHAI Chairman to remain physically present on August 18, 2026.

The underlying dispute relates to land belonging to Durga Singh and others at Village Godri No. 1, Tehsil Mangawan, District Rewa, acquired in connection with the widening of NH-27 on the Mangawan-Chakghat stretch. The landowners had challenged the compensation awarded for the acquisition. The compensation reference was ultimately dismissed by the Collector-cum-Arbitrator, Rewa, on June 10, 2025, on the ground of limitation, following which the landowners approached the High Court.

The NHAI, in its challenge before the Supreme Court, contended that neither it nor its Chairman had any substantive adjudicatory role in the compensation dispute. The petition pointed out that the statutory functions concerning determination of compensation and adjudication of the reference lay with the competent authority and the Collector-cum-Arbitrator.

The NHAI further submitted that the enhanced compensation of ?18,29,930, including ?13,72,410 towards enhanced compensation and ?4,57,520 as interest, had already been paid to the landowners and that this compliance had been placed before the High Court.

According to the petition, the High Court’s direction for personal appearance came after counsel for the petitioners and one of the respondents did not appear on June 17. The subsequent order directed the physical presence of the NHAI Chairman and the appearance of the MoRTH Secretary through video conference.

The NHAI argued before the Supreme Court that coercive directions requiring personal appearance of senior government functionaries should be used sparingly, particularly where there was no allegation of wilful disobedience or contumacious conduct. It also argued that no relief had been sought against NHAI in the writ proceedings and that its absence on the relevant date had caused no prejudice.