(2) The resolution or ordinance of a public condemner is presumptive evidence of the public necessity of the proposed use, that the property is necessary therefor and that the proposed use, improvement or project is planned or located in a manner which will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.
(3) The commencement of an action to condemn property by a private condemner creates a disputable presumption of the necessity of the proposed use, that the property is necessary therefor and that the proposed use, improvement or project is planned or located in a manner which will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.
(4) The question of the validity of the disputable presumptions created in subsection (3) of this section, if raised, shall be determined by the court in a summary proceeding prior to trial.
(5) It is not a prerequisite to the exercise of the right of eminent domain by the condemner to attempt first to agree with an owner or to allege or prove any effort to agree with such owner as to reasonable value, when such owner is at the time concealed within the state or, after reasonable effort by condemner, cannot be found within the state. [1971 c.741 §6; 1973 c.579 §1]