Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the trial court’s denial of the university’s plea to the jurisdiction in part, but concluded that the bank’s claim for inverse condemnation was properly dismissed because the university took the property under color of contract, as conceded by the parties in their pleadings. Id. at 911. In contrast to Texas Southern, in which the parties conceded the existence of a contract by which the university took possession of the equipment, here, the Porrettos’ claim of ownership in the land is unchallenged in the pleadings and the evidence. Id. Instead, the facts in this case resemble those in State v. Riemer and Kenedy Memorial Foundation v. Mauro, cases in which takings claims survived a plea to the jurisdiction. See State v. Riemer, 94 S.W.3d 103, 109 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2002, no pet.) ; see also Kenedy Mem’l Found., 921 S.W.2d at
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding ripe a claim for a pre1987 taking because prior to first english california law did not permit landowners to seek compensation for a regulatory taking through an action in inverse condemnation
B. holding that there is no right to monetary compensation for a regulatory taking in an inverse condemnation action
C. holding assignment of oil and gas lease is subject to business and commerce code section 2601
D. holding provision in oil and gas lease authorizing lessor to use gas for agricultural purposes contained no geographical limitations
E. holding that allegations that states lease and actions that resulted in taking of oil and gas were sufficient to state claim for inverse condemnation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.