In order to accommodate and protect various rights of NNPs of Ethiopia, the FDRE constitution established ethnic federalism since 1995. Among others, land resource become the common property of NNPs of Ethiopia and the state. Ethiopian rural peasants have constitutional rights to access arable land without fees and guaranteed from arbitrary eviction without indigenous and non-indigenous dichotomy. For the realization of this constitutional rights, the central government entrusted to enact land governing laws which serve as a guiding framework for the federation units when they administer their respective region’s land resource. However, following ethnic based structure of federation units, regional states classify peoples as indigenous-non-indigenous/owner-non-owner to the region based membership to primordially identified NNPs of Ethiopian ethnic groups and limit constitutionally recognized land rights of non-indigenous peasants. Therefore, this study aims to investigate how access to land rights of nonindigenous peasants is defined and understood in BGRS and to explore the indigenous-non-indigenous peasant’s dichotomy in relation to access to land and nature of land rights based on the existing land policy. Besides, the study investigates the impacts of the dichotomy on tenure security of non-indigenous peasants and the rationale behind for the creation of indigenous-non-indigenous dichotomy. Moreover, the study explore the legal and practical remedies available for arbitrarily evicted non-indigenous peasants from their land rights in both levels of government. In doing so, the study employed socio-legal research which is carried out through qualitative case study research approach by investigating land governing laws via the power of reasoning and its impact within the dichotomized indigenous-nonindigenous peoples. After exploration of the issues raised above, the writer has, eventually, reached to the following findings. Following the establishment of ethnic federal arrangement, BGRS revised constitution classifies ethnic groups as indigenous-non-indigenous to the region. Subsequently, the existing land resource of the region belonging to indigenous nationalities. Hence, the land rights of non-indigenous peasants are limited and face decentralized despotism that arise from ambiguous nature of land policy and pitfalls of ethnic federalism. Further, non-indigenous peasants are exposed for systematic marginalization and their land rights become unsecure due to unfavorable environmental conditions. There is also tenancy-landlordism relationship. When non-indigenous peasants arbitrarily excluded from their land rights in both levels of government, they have no legal mechanism to avert the problem. Therefore, the land rights of nonindigenous peasants are not protected and excluded from the ambits of common property of land resource in the region.