With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". noted, if transfer of title were held to moot any challenge to the public purpose, all condemning authorities could insulate the public purpose requirement from judicial review by utilizing the quick-take procedures. This is a rigid rule that does not always satisfy our test for mootness. We have recognized that equitable relief may remain available even after the condemning authority has acquired title to the property. See County of Blue Earth v. Stauffenberg, 264 N.W.2d 647, 649-50 (Minn.1978) (stating that although a taking may be completed by the time the necessity of the governmental taking is finally reviewed by this court, the governmental body that took the property can be compelled to return it to its previous owner); see also In re Rapp, 621 N.W.2d 781, 784 (Minn.App.2001) (<HOLDING>). Adopting respondent’s bright line rule would

A: holding that property owner still has relief in the form of the return of his property though condemnation was complete and a highway was constructed across the property
B: holding that in condemnation proceedings the landowner has the burden of establishing the value of the property
C: holding where the commonwealth is not in possession of property in question petition for return of property is moot
D: holding that because the property owner argued only a theory of taking that was no longer a valid theory property owner did not demonstrate his entitlement to relief
A.