[brief] “The power of condemnation being in derogation of property rights, it is required to be strictly construed and all statutory prerequisites must be established to sustain its exercise. ”  New Jersey Highway Auth. v. Currie, 35 N.J. Super. 525, 540 (App. Div. 1955).  The Eminent Domain Act provides the exclusive process when government invokes the awesome power of condemnation and for property owners to challenge such actions.  The Legislature did not authorize the piecemeal adjudication of the rights afforded to property owners facing condemnation, which, would deny the Owners the protections, rights and remedies established under the Eminent Domain Act.  The Township must not be permitted to circumvent this process.  When invoking the power of eminent domain, government is obligated to “turn square corners. ”  F.M.C., supra, 100 N.J. 418, 426 (1985).  Our courts have long held that when implicating its condemnation power, “government has an overriding obligation to deal forthrightly and fairly with property owners. ”  Ibid. (citing Rockaway v. Donofrio, 186 N.J. Super. 344 (App. Div. 1982).  This maxim is especially true in the context of a public agency’s taking of private land for redevelopment.  Costello, supra, 252 N.J. Super. at 257.  A municipality may not conduct itself so as to achieve or preserve any kind of bargaining or litigational advantage over the property owner, F.M.C, supra, 100 N.J. at 427; Costello, supra, 252 N.J. Super. at 257.  In the [...] matter, the court did not adjudicate this condemnation matter; Defendants have every right under the law to challenge this condemnation action.  The Township may not circumvent the requirement of adjudicating a condemnation action as required by the Eminent Domain Act.  The [...] court did not render any determination as to whether the Township complied with all statutory condemnation requirements.  Moreover, it has “an overriding obligation to deal forthrightly and fairly with property owners. ”  The Township is obligated to provide a clearly articulated statutorily authorized use for the subject property set forth in the public record.  See F.M.C., supra, 100 N.J. at 426-27; see also Jersey City Redevelopment Agency v. Costello, supra, 252 N.J. Super. at 257.  Otherwise, government officials would be able to violate private property rights at any time for any reason – or for no reason.  The articulation of a present public use to justify a condemnation is the essential first step in determining whether a condemnor is exceeding its statutory authorization or operating in bad faith.  A prospective condemnor must demonstrate why it is taking a property at that time.  Here, prior to filing and during the “bona fide negotiations” period required by N.J.S.A. 20:3-6, the Township alleged the taking was in the public interest for open space without acknowledging the land swap.  Only after challenged by the defendants did the Township acknowledge the swap with the Developer, but still the public record is devoid of any meaningful indication of how the subject properties will be utilized by the Township and there are no limitations on the Developer’s use of the property it is receiving.  Clearly the Township failed to articulate such a proper public purpose for the taking, and trial court improperly found the Township sufficiently stated it had a proper public purpose to preserve the open space.